Author: Becka Badby
When GNSS Can’t Be Trusted: How Independent Is The Rest Of The Bridge?
“The maritime sector is one of the most GNSS dependent sectors of the UK economy. Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) data are used at all stages of maritime journeys for navigation and safety purposes, from oceanic and coastal navigation to maneuvers in ports.” (UK Government.)
The quote is UK specific, but the underlying dependency is familiar across commercial and naval operations: GNSS supports considerably more than the vessel’s position on a chart. That dependency becomes more significant as interference becomes more frequent and affects a wider range of operating environments.
In January 2026, the coastal states of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, together with Iceland, warned of growing GNSS interference and called for stronger vessel capabilities, crew preparedness and alternative radio navigation systems. Geopolitical instability continues to affect established shipping routes. The map below shows a high-level estimate of GNSS interference hotspots derived from reported disruption in 2026.
Indicative GNSS interference hotspots based on publicly reported maritime incidents and safety reporting in 2026. Not exhaustive.
The implications of that disruption extend beyond an unreliable position fix. Research from the Royal Institute of Navigation highlights how GNSS-derived information can propagate through systems well beyond the dedicated positioning receiver. The RIN’s 2026 maritime research identifies dependencies involving equipment including radar, radios, NAVTEX, speed logs, ship clocks and satellite communications.
Bridge teams already have established responses to GNSS denial and interference, drawing on radar, AIS, inertial systems, visual observations, manual fixing, procedures and professional judgment. These remain important ways of navigating through GNSS disruption. But where several bridge systems ultimately depend on GNSS-derived data, having multiple sources of information doesn’t necessarily mean having multiple independent sources of position.
For crews operating through GNSS denial and interference, this raises a wider systems question: When several systems remain available, how independent are the sources behind the information they present, and how much confidence can be placed in them?
Proven Ways to Manage GNSS Disruption
Experienced crews don’t depend on a single display. Radar provides range and bearing information on coastlines, fixed structures, vessels and other targets. Visual observations and manual fixes remain available where conditions permit. Inertial navigation and dead reckoning can maintain an estimate of vessel movement when external position updates are lost. AIS contributes traffic, identity and positional information.
These are established layers of navigation practice, and current guidance continues to recognize their importance. The IMO, ICAO and ITU have called for greater resilience of GNSS-dependent positioning, navigation and timing systems, while also supporting conventional navigation infrastructure for contingency use.
Their value during GNSS disruption, however, depends not only on whether they remain available, but on how independently their information is derived. Radar fixes and visual observations can provide evidence independent of GNSS. Inertial systems can continue estimating movement, although their uncertainty develops over time without external aiding. Other information presented on the bridge may still depend directly or indirectly on GNSS.
AIS is an important example. Vessel position is typically derived from an electronic position-fixing source, meaning that during GNSS interference, the integrity of the information feeding AIS matters too. A January 2026 interference event near Los Angeles and Long Beach illustrates how this can appear in live traffic. AIS reports from at least seven vessels showed position jumps indicative of spoofing, while one vessel stopped transmitting AIS for nearly an hour, likely because its GNSS solution had become invalid. The incident illustrates a broader problem: information can remain visible across several bridge systems without those systems providing genuinely independent confirmation of position.
Shared Dependencies Across Bridge Systems
A modern bridge can present position information in several places while some of those systems ultimately consume the same underlying data. The RIN maritime research identifies dependencies between GNSS receivers and a range of onboard electronics.
IMCA’s 2026 guidance on GNSS jamming and spoofing in dynamic positioning operations similarly warns that interference can degrade several GNSS based position reference systems simultaneously, creating the potential for common mode failure. A well documented incident involving the tanker Atria showed this problem clearly. When the vessel’s reported position was displaced by around 25-30 miles, the crew restarted both the primary and backup GPS units. Both returned the same false position. Alarms were triggered across the bridge, and approximately 20 nearby vessels were reported with similar anomalies.
IMCA notes that spoofing may produce stable but incorrect position data, while integrated or blended systems can mask an underlying GNSS problem.
Live Trinity House jamming trials provide another example of how an error can propagate. Relatively low power interference caused a gradual position error that affected the vessel’s autopilot and altered its course before bridge alarms were triggered. At higher interference levels, full GPS denial produced alarms across multiple bridge systems.
Establishing Which System Information Can Be Trusted
Detecting interference is only the first step. Cross-checking can show that something is wrong, but it doesn’t automatically establish which source is right. Once available references begin to disagree, crews face a question of diagnosis and confidence:
- Which source has moved?
- When did the discrepancy begin?
- Which connected systems are receiving the suspect position?
- Are apparently separate systems actually using a common source?
- What information remains sufficiently trustworthy for the operation underway?
This is particularly important during spoofing, as while a clean GNSS loss can be relatively obvious, a plausible false position may continue to move smoothly and be distributed across connected systems. The bridge can therefore continue to present coherent-looking information even when some of the underlying data is no longer reliable.
The Nautical Institute notes that GNSS disruption can produce incorrect ECDIS positions, affect GNSS-fed radar or ARPA information and contribute to gyro-related alarms, with multiple alarms potentially occurring at the same time. In that situation, the key challenge is understanding whether the problem is isolated to one system or being propagated through several systems that share the same underlying data.
The Gap Between Signal and Confidence
The confidence problem can continue after the interference itself appears to have ended. Restoration of a GNSS signal doesn’t always immediately restore confidence in the position it reports.
Public incidents show why the two may not happen at the same point. In the Atria incident, restarting both GPS receivers still produced the same false position. During the January 2026 LA/Long Beach event, one vessel’s AIS remained unavailable for nearly an hour. Recovery can depend on receiver behavior, system integration and the checks required before the resulting information can again be treated as trustworthy.
Where several connected systems have inherited the same suspect data, establishing that the returning position is credible can take longer. Even when conventional GNSS begins reporting normally again, crews may still need evidence that the position is credible before confidence can be restored.
In that situation, the missing piece is an independently derived point of reference against which the returning GNSS solution, and the systems dependent on it, can be assessed.
Where an Independent Position Reference Adds Value
Maritime resilience guidance points towards a layered approach combining crew preparedness, conventional navigation techniques, diverse technical references and more resilient PNT capabilities.
Iridium PNT provides one such reference. It delivers positioning, navigation and timing using the Iridium Low Earth Orbit satellite constellation, with a separate constellation, signal and frequency band from conventional GNSS. This allows its position to be compared directly with the GNSS-derived position being assessed.
If the two agree, that provides additional evidence in support of the reported position. If they diverge, crews have an indication that the GNSS-derived information requires further investigation.
What Does This Look Like During Real GNSS Interference?
RockFLEET Assured applies this approach by combining conventional GNSS with an independent position derived from Iridium PNT. The system continuously compares the two positions and can raise an alert if GNSS is lost or they diverge beyond configured parameters. A bridge display presents both positions and tracks together, while NMEA interfaces support integration with compatible onboard equipment.
A 2026 live trial provided an example of how that reference can behave during real interference. During the trial, six GNSS jamming or spoofing events were reported onboard a large passenger vessel operating in the Baltic Sea. During one of the clearest events, on a voyage between Baltic ports, the vessel reported the loss of several positioning systems, including GNSS, SAT-C and Fugro.
Ground Control’s recorded data showed RockFLEET Assured continuing to report an Iridium PNT-derived position through the disruption until the vessel reached port, and conventional GNSS returned. The onboard display recorded the GNSS and A-PNT tracks separately, allowing the behavior of the two sources to be compared throughout the event.
At the same time, position and event data remained available through Cloudloop for shore-side monitoring, audit and interrogation. This provided the shore team with an evidence trail that could support subsequent technical, legal or insurance review.
Resilience Depends on Genuine Independence
Bridge resilience already combines equipment, procedures and professional judgment. Increasing GNSS interference adds another consideration: understanding where common dependencies exist when the wider navigation picture becomes uncertain.
For ship owners, navigation teams and technical operators, the question is whether the systems already installed provide enough independent evidence to assess position confidently when conventional GNSS becomes unreliable.
Talk to Our Technical Team
Ground Control can provide further technical information on RockFLEET Assured solution, its integration options and evidence from current operational deployments. Complete the form and one of our technical team will be in touch.
How Satellite IoT Can Underpin Confidence in Remote Water Systems Monitoring
Water quality monitoring no longer sits at the edge of operational strategy. It’s at the center of regulatory exposure, public reporting, and engineering accountability.
Designing or managing remote water quality monitoring systems lays the foundation for data continuity, defensible timestamps, and structured reporting outputs that withstand regulatory scrutiny. Across the UK, the United States, and other regulated markets, compliance expectations are tightening. Monitoring systems must now deliver continuous data, auditable records, and structured exports suitable for regulator portals and public dashboards.
Satellite IoT plays a defined role in meeting this regulatory need. The right architecture for the job reduces reliance on intermittent or patchy cellular coverage and strengthens confidence in the data transfer. The result is not simply connectivity; it’s system resilience and credibility.
Here we explore two remote water monitoring examples, and what they show about building confidence in the audit trail that follows.
How Regulatory Pressure is Reshaping Monitoring Design
In the UK, the Environment Act 2021 introduced statutory duties around monitoring upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works (Section 82). The UK’s storm overflow policy guidance outlines expectations for monitoring and transparency. Following on in 2023, environmental penalties in the UK were uncapped, removing the previous £250,000 ceiling for serious breaches. Enforcement activity has since reflected this increased accountability.
In the United States, the Clean Water Act operates through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and reporting violations contribute to the Significant Noncompliance status. In summary, regulatory frameworks are established; what continues to evolve is their technical implication.
How Water Monitoring Systems Support Regulatory Standards
Why Connectivity Determines Confidence
Many remote river gauges, reservoirs, and discharge sites sit outside reliable cellular coverage. Even where coverage exists, service continuity can degrade during extreme weather, power disruption, or infrastructure failure. Total reliance on cellular connectivity introduces exposure.
Satellite IoT addresses this constraint directly. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) networks provide global coverage without dependence on local infrastructure. While satellite is not the right fit for every data profile, it offers coverage certainty where terrestrial networks cannot.
For message-based telemetry, Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD) supports low latency, small payload messaging suited to alarms, status updates, and exception-based reporting. That makes it particularly relevant where compliance-related events need to be captured and transmitted reliably from remote locations.
In practice, resilient remote monitoring often combines connectivity approaches to balance immediacy, scale, and power constraints. The examples below show what that can look like in water utility operations.
Case Study 1: Reservoir Monitoring and Remote Pump Control
The first example involves a remote reservoir that requires dependable monitoring and controlled pump activation despite unreliable cellular coverage. Two RockBLOCK RTUs were installed.
The upper unit measures water level and flow. It operates outside cellular range and uses Iridium SBD to transmit short command and status messages. When the water level is sufficient, it signals the lower RTU to activate the pump.
The lower RTU actuates the pump and sends a periodic cellular heartbeat to confirm system availability, providing near-real time confirmation of upstream conditions, controlled pump activation, documented event timestamps, and independent verification of site status.
From a compliance perspective, the Cloudloop platform retains a time sequenced record of level measurement, command transmission, pump activation, and heartbeat confirmation. Therefore, if questioned, the operational timeline can be reconstructed.
Case Study 2: River Health Monitoring With Micro Data Logging
In our second deployment example, a local water authority needed to measure river level and velocity, derive discharge, and capture core water quality indicators. Rather than installing a full stand-alone data logger with integrated satellite comms, RockBLOCK RTU’s micro data logging capability was used to capture essential metrics.
Thresholds were configured so sudden turbidity spikes or abnormal conductivity shifts triggered alerts. Measurements flowed directly into the connected software via Cloudloop API integration.
This approach provided continuous, time-stamped records, exception alerts to support rapid investigation, structured export into mapping and reporting tools, and reduced integration overhead. For remote water monitoring more broadly, logging infrastructure and communications layers remain unified rather than fragmented across separate systems.
Building an Auditable Data Pathway
Confidence in remote water quality monitoring doesn’t come from a single device, but from the integrity of the whole data pathway. When time stamps are preserved across each layer, transmissions are acknowledged, and configuration changes are logged, reliance on manual consolidation falls, reducing errors and saving both time and money.
Auditability Across the Monitoring Chain
Within the layered architecture described above, the platform layer is where telemetry becomes a structured operational record.
Cloudloop Data provides the ingestion and decoding layer between satellite transmission and operational systems. Messages received from RockBLOCK RTU are converted into readable sensor values, normalized, time stamped, and made available through a secure portal or API.
This removes the need to manage raw payload parsing internally and helps ensure each transmission is logged with the metadata needed for traceability, including device identity, transmission time, and delivery status.
In the reservoir monitoring example, level measurements, command triggers, and pump activation confirmations are preserved as a time-sequenced operational record.
In the river health deployment, turbidity and conductivity alerts are decoded and logged with consistent metadata before export into reporting and GIS tools.
Visualizing and Integrating Monitoring Data
Cloudloop Insights builds on that structured data foundation by providing visualization, threshold configuration, and remote device control. Dashboards show both live and historical values, while threshold breaches, device status changes, and configuration updates are retained as part of the operational record, helping link system behavior back to defined monitoring parameters.
Both Cloudloop Data and Cloudloop Insights expose APIs, allowing telemetry and control data to flow into regulator submission tools, GIS environments, enterprise asset management systems, and custom EMS platforms. This API-first approach supports automated export for NPDES or UK reporting workflows, structured integration with mapping systems, programmatic access to historical telemetry, and closer alignment between remote measurement and institutional record-keeping.
As remote water quality monitoring comes under greater regulatory scrutiny and public visibility, monitoring systems need to support continuous measurement, structured reporting, and reconstructable data lineage across distributed, infrastructure poor environments. Together, these examples show how message-based satellite telemetry, edge logging, and structured platform integration can support compliance-grade monitoring.
Can we help?
If you are reviewing or upgrading a remote monitoring architecture, our Technical Solutions team can help assess site conditions, regulatory obligations, sensor requirements, latency needs, and audit trail completeness.
Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll get back to you within one working day.
Infographic: Why Remote Environmental Monitoring Systems Fail
Plus, How to Create Long Term Monitoring Stability
Remote environmental monitoring systems rarely fail all at once. Performance erodes gradually; data gaps widen, devices fall offline intermittently, power budgets tighten, and maintenance intervals shrink. Over time, reliability drops below what the original design assumed. The infographic below summarizes the most common technical and operational factors behind that decline, based on long term field observations across utilities and remote environmental monitoring deployments.
Many of these patterns may be familiar to you, yet their cumulative impact over five to ten years is less visible. Long term degradation is typically captured in post-mortems, warranty data, and support logs rather than formal reporting, so systemic reliability issues are often inferred from truck rolls or unexplained data loss instead of addressed at the design stage. Connectivity selection, power design, enclosure strategy, and remote management capability all shape lifecycle performance. Understanding these failure modes helps frame more durable trade-offs early, particularly where hybrid cellular and satellite options are being considered.
Helping OEMs Choose
For sensor OEMs, long term reliability increasingly shapes product selection and channel acceptance. Coverage variability, power constraints, integration overhead, and regulatory requirements all influence whether satellite or hybrid connectivity is commercially viable within your portfolio.
Our Environmental Sensor OEM connectivity guide outlines practical integration models, device classes, lifecycle considerations, and where satellite and hybrid designs materially reduce field failure risk. It is structured to support internal technical and commercial evaluation.
View Guide
Designing for Long Term Remote System Performance
If you’re designing for durable performance over the full deployment lifecycle of your remote environmental monitoring system, that means balancing coverage, power budget, data volume, enclosure design, remote management, and maintenance costs before scale amplifies weaknesses.
Satellite and hybrid architectures introduce different trade-offs depending on reporting frequency, firmware strategy, and site accessibility. Reviewing these options early helps reduce unplanned site visits and sustain data continuity over years, not quarters.
We’ve written more about this in our blog: Designing for Power and Reliable Data Delivery Under Uncertain Connectivity.
Find out more
If you are reviewing a current deployment or planning a new one, we can provide structured technical input based on your use case, power constraints, data profile, and coverage requirements. We design and manufacture our own devices and also support third party satellite hardware, so recommendations are aligned to lifecycle performance rather than a single product line.
If you complete the form with a brief outline of your application and constraints, a member of our engineering or technical support team will respond with impartial, practical guidance.
Designing for Power and Reliable Data Delivery Under Uncertain Connectivity
If you integrate remote environmental monitoring systems, you will eventually encounter a site where connectivity becomes the dominant uncertainty. Sensors continue to sample correctly. Local electronics remain operational. Yet data delivery becomes intermittent or unpredictable. In many cases, the issue is not outright loss of coverage, but changing network conditions at sites that were always near the edge of what terrestrial connectivity could reliably support.
At that point, the problem shifts. It’s no longer about sensor selection or firmware optimization, but rather a system design question: how do you maintain low power operation and predictable data delivery when network behavior cannot be assumed to be stable over time? This is where system integrators typically start comparing architectural options rather than individual bearers.
The first of these options is terrestrial cellular, using LTE-M or NB-IoT, where coverage is stable and well characterised over time. The second is proprietary satellite connectivity, where coverage reach and low duty cycle operation are prioritized over throughput. The third, emerging option is Non Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, defined in 3GPP Release 17, which aims to extend cellular standards beyond terrestrial infrastructure using satellite networks.
Each model behaves differently at the system level. None is universally good or bad. The challenge for the system integrator is determining which operating envelope matches the realities of a given deployment.
A Practical Decision Framework for Remote Monitoring Sites
In practice, connectivity decisions are best framed around a small number of system-level criteria:
- How stable is coverage over seasons, vegetation cycles, and weather, not just at installation?
- How defensible does the connectivity choice need to be over a multi-year deployment?
- Is the team building a custom node, or does it prefer an integrated monitoring device?
- How constrained is power, and how expensive is site access if batteries deplete early?
- What is the expected payload size per reporting interval?
- How often does the device need to wake and transmit, and how tolerant is the application to latency?
In remote environmental monitoring, these questions are often more predictive of long term system than headline bandwidth figures or nominal coverage maps. They surface how connectivity behaves over time, how often radios wake, and how energy is actually consumed under real site conditions.
Technical Connectivity Matrix
The matrix below helps match connectivity options to their most defensible operating envelopes, and is most useful when applied to site conditions rather than connectivity technologies in isolation. In marginal or variable RF, devices may spend longer acquiring the network and retrying transmissions, which increases energy consumption and reduces delivery reliability / latency predictability. Those risks can matter as much as nominal coverage.
| Cellular NB-IoT | Proprietary Satellite* | NTN NB-IoT** | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Strength | Lowest cost per KB; high throughput | Global reach; predictable power profile | Converged hardware model; emerging reach |
| Coverage Stability | Variable at cell edges; sensitive to vegetation | High, assuming hemispherical sky view | Emerging; constellation dependent |
| Low Power Operating Modes and Sleep Opportunity | Supports PSM (very low average possible), but sleep opportunity depends on operator timers + coverage | Supports true deep sleep via power gating between scheduled bursts (system design dependent) | Early estimates ~10–50 µA |
| Transmit Load Profile | TX current is variable (uplink power control, coverage enhancement). Worst case energy / on time can increase due to repetitions, attach / resume behavior, and retries | TX is typically short burst transmissions with an implementation defined retry cap; peak can be amp class depending on module / rail, but event duration and attempt count can be tightly bounded | Low power operation expected; current figures are highly implementation- and network-dependent |
| Max Practical Payload | 1,400-1,600 bytes | 100 KB | 1,200 bytes |
| Min Practical Payload | 30-50 bytes | 10 bytes | 10-30 bytes |
| Typical Latency | ~100 ms to several seconds | ~10 seconds | 10 – 60s; MVNO scheduling could increase this to 2 – 5 mins) |
| Risk Factors | Network maintenance signalling and retries in marginal RF | Relatively high peak current; antenna placement and sky visibility | Immature ecosystem; coverage and delivery reliability still variable / under validation (latency and transaction timing may be less predictable than terrestrial) |
| Deployment Status | Mature and ubiquitous | Mature and proven | Early commercial trials |
*Based on Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)
**Based on Viasat NB-NTN service – specification subject to change
Why Connectivity Dominates Lifetime Uncertainty
Long life environmental monitoring nodes are designed to sleep almost all the time because field power is expensive; whether that’s truck rolls for batteries or solar constrained by canopy, weather, latitude, and vandalism risk.
In most deployments, the sensing and compute workload is predictable and easy to budget. What’s harder to budget is communications: acquisition time, repetitions / retries, and delivery uncertainty can swing dramatically with site RF conditions and seasonality. That variability often becomes the biggest driver of both battery life uncertainty and operational reliability, more so than the sensor workload itself.
How Terrestrial Cellular Behaves in Remote Environments
Cellular connectivity performs well when coverage is stable and predictable. In those conditions, LTE-M and NB-IoT are often the most cost effective and operationally simple choice.
Challenges arise in remote environments where coverage quality fluctuates rather than failing completely. Field experience from utilities, water monitoring, and environmental telemetry deployments shows that link conditions at unattended sites often vary over time due to terrain, vegetation growth, weather, and seasonal effects, even when initial installation is successful.
From a power perspective, this variability matters. Under marginal coverage conditions, devices may attempt repeated attachment or transmission cycles before successful delivery. These retries consume energy without proportional data transfer.
Operationally, this can result in systems that appear functional but are difficult to predict. Batteries deplete faster than expected, and data gaps are harder to diagnose remotely. This does not mean cellular is unsuitable for remote monitoring. It highlights the importance of understanding how cellular behavior evolves within a specific deployment context, particularly at marginal coverage sites where energy risk can be as significant as coverage risk.
If your design needs predictable energy and diagnosability under uncertain RF, you may prefer a connectivity model that is explicitly scheduled and bounded: this is the key shift introduced by satellite IoT.
How Satellite IoT Architectures Change System Assumptions
Satellite IoT spans two broad architectural models: message-based services (store and forward / burst messaging) and IP-based services. Message-based links are naturally aligned to low duty cycles: devices wake on an application defined schedule to transmit a small payload, optionally open a short receive window, and then return to deep sleep. In this model there is no requirement for continuous “always-on” participation, and average energy use is closely coupled to reporting cadence, retry policy, and power domain design.
IP-based satellite terminals can provide richer connectivity and more interactive downlink, but may incur additional idle overhead to maintain readiness or session behavior, even when user traffic is low.
For long life environmental monitoring, the most defensible operating envelope is typically scheduled messaging with deep sleep between sessions, not continuous reachability. The remainder of this post therefore focuses on message-based satellite IoT, and on implementation patterns that make the comms link behave like any other managed subsystem with predictable states and budgets. We start with Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) via RockBLOCK modules (particularly the 9704), as it fits naturally into a wake > transmit > sleep design.
Implementation path one: Message-based satcom as a managed subsystem (RockBLOCK 9704)
RockBLOCK 9704 is built around the Iridium Certus 9704 module and uses Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT): a cloud connected, two way messaging service for small to moderate payloads (up to ~100 KB) designed for IoT devices rather than continuous IP sessions.
In a long life monitoring node, it’s best treated as a schedulable subsystem inside a wider embedded design. In practice, integrators typically:
- Power-gate the modem (load switch/PMIC) so “off” is truly off
- Wake it only after sampling / validation, when there’s something worth sending
- Transmit in short, scheduled sessions, with an explicit retry policy
- Return to deep sleep (or fully unpowered) immediately after the exchange.
The key engineering advantage is boundedness: reporting cadence, session timing, and retry limits are largely under host control, so you can model energy around a small set of well defined states (off / boot / transmit / receive window).
Peak transmit current can be high because closing a link to a LEO constellation requires substantial instantaneous RF power. In a messaging oriented design this draw occurs in short, intentional transmit bursts with bounded duration. The design trade shifts from minimising peak current to ensuring the power system comfortably supports short peaks (battery internal resistance, regulator headroom, local capacitance), while keeping average energy dominated by how often you transmit.
RockBLOCK 9704 doesn’t manage your sensor rails or MCU sleep states – those remain the job of the embedded design – so standard low power techniques (switched sensor rails, unpowered analog front ends outside measurement windows) still apply.
Because IMT is a two way messaging service, you can make delivery outcomes explicit at the application layer: buffer locally, send, then check for confirmation on the next scheduled wake window, without keeping the node awake. This keeps reliability mechanisms aligned with the same duty cycled philosophy as sensing. The important caveat is that network availability (constellation / service uptime) is not the same as guaranteed delivery in every installation: local RF conditions still dominate, i.e. sky view, canopy, terrain, enclosure losses, and antenna placement.
That integration pattern works well when you’re building your own node around a messaging modem. When you’d rather avoid custom hardware and firmware integration, the same principles can be applied at the system level:
Implementation path two: RockBLOCK RTU as an integrated low power monitoring device
If you don’t want to integrate and power manage a satcom module inside your own node, RockBLOCK RTU packages the same sleep dominant principles at the system level: sensing, scheduling, local buffering, and messaging in one device. RockBLOCK RTU uses Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD), Iridium’s classic two way short-packet messaging service, so it naturally fits duty cycled environmental monitoring workloads.
RockBLOCK RTU is designed around a sleep dominant lifecycle:
- Extended low power sleep as the default state
- Wake events driven by schedule, thresholds, or external triggers
- Short transmission windows
- Immediate return to sleep.
Sensor power is explicitly controlled so sensors are energised only during measurement windows, eliminating standing analog bias currents. This mirrors best practice low power sensor design without requiring custom analog switching. Because message-based satellite operation can be scheduled without continuous reachability, RockBLOCK RTU avoids some of the standing ‘network-reachable’ overhead that can appear in terrestrial designs (depending on configuration and coverage).
In addition to sensing, RockBLOCK RTU provides system level control and observability that are often important in unattended deployments. Configurable digital outputs can switch sensor power rails or external loads, and analog inputs can monitor system voltages (battery, supply rails, excitation lines).
This enables remote verification of power health, detection of brownout conditions, and confirmation that sensors are energised only when expected, helping distinguish sensing issues, power delivery problems, and comms failures without site access.
Time Alignment and Operational Visibility
A recurring operational challenge in unattended monitoring is ambiguity: when data is missing, it’s often unclear whether the system failed to measure or failed to report. RockBLOCK RTU reduces this ambiguity with an internal clock and UTC-aligned timestamps (GNSS when available), making it easier to correlate measurements with expected reporting intervals and separate sensing gaps from delivery failures.
When Proprietary Messaging Satcom is Usually the Wrong Tool
Message-based proprietary satellite IoT is optimized for predictable, low duty telemetry – not high volume data or near real time streaming. Where cellular coverage is stable and power is plentiful, terrestrial LPWAN/cellular often remains the simplest and most cost effective option.
The interesting middle ground is NTN NB-IoT, which aims to extend cellular-style connectivity via satellite, so it’s worth understanding how much of the terrestrial behavior (and variability) it inherits.
NTN NB-IoT as an Emerging Option
Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, standardized in 3GPP Release 17, extends familiar NB-IoT device and core concepts to satellite links and is often framed as a bridge between terrestrial cellular and proprietary satellite IoT.
For environmental monitoring engineers, the key point is the capability shape: NTN NB-IoT is still fundamentally a low data, latency tolerant telemetry channel , not a streaming link , while aiming to preserve cellular style device models and tooling.
Commercially, it remains an emerging option: footprints, roaming models, and integration paths are operator and region dependent, and multi year public field data on power variance and failure modes is still limited compared with mature terrestrial PSM deployments. That doesn’t imply worse power performance; only that it’s harder (today) to treat it as a fully characterized default for unattended multi-year deployments.
As an illustrative example, Viasat’s NB-NTN positioning is bidirectional messaging with practical payloads around 10–30 bytes up to ~1,200 bytes, typical latency on the order of 10–60 seconds (potentially minutes depending on scheduling), and cost optimized for very small monthly data volumes (e.g., <50 KB).
One implementation detail worth flagging is NIDD (Non-IP Data Delivery). Where supported end to end by the operator and device stack, NIDD can reduce protocol overhead for tiny messages versus UDP/IP, which can materially help battery life at scale; but it’s worth confirming early whether your chosen NTN integration path actually exposes it in practice.
RockBLOCK RTU and NTN Evaluation Paths
An NTN-enabled RockBLOCK RTU is being used in early programs on Viasat’s NB-NTN service. The point isn’t that NTN performance is already fully proven; it’s that you can test and measure it using a monitoring device with a known low power architecture and good instrumentation.
Because RockBLOCK RTU already implements a sleep-dominant lifecycle (scheduled wake, short transmit windows, controlled sensor power, UTC-aligned timestamps, and supply-voltage monitoring), it provides a consistent baseline for evaluating NTN energy use, delivery timing, and variability without redesigning the sensing node.
If you’re considering NTN NB-IoT for an environmental monitoring deployment, Ground Control can support trial deployments and share an evaluation plan.
Practical Implications for System Integrators
For system integrators working in remote environmental monitoring, connectivity decisions are rarely static. Alignment between duty cycle, power constraints, coverage stability, and operational risk tends to determine long term system performance.
Cellular, proprietary satellite messaging services, and NTN NB-IoT each occupy different operating envelopes. Understanding those differences enables decisions to be defended throughout the lifecycle of a deployment.
Where coverage stability cannot be assumed, satellite connectivity provides an architectural alternative that aligns well with how low power remote monitoring systems are typically designed to operate. NTN NB-IoT represents a promising but still emerging option, particularly in contexts where long-term unattended power and reliability characteristics are still being established.
Planning for Intermittent Connectivity is a System Decision.
If you’re assessing where proprietary satellite, NTN NB-IoT, or hybrid connectivity fits into your architecture, we can help you evaluate the trade offs early, before reliability or power becomes the constraint.
Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.
Remote Environmental Monitoring: Matching Connectivity to the Challenge
A recent macroeconomic study cited by the World Economic Forum suggests climate warming could cost the world 12% of GDP per °C of temperature rise.
Applied to national economies, this equates to annual losses of over $3.2 trillion for the United States, more than $2.1 trillion for China, and hundreds of billions for other major economies and regions such as Germany, the UK, Africa, and Australia.
These figures underline why investment in environmental monitoring and early warning systems is not just planet saving, but economically essential.
IoT opens new possibilities for environmental insight and protection, but many monitoring sites lie beyond cellular networks, making connectivity difficult.
The Challenge of Monitoring Our Planet
Why is environmental monitoring so hard in remote areas?
Often, the places we most need data from are the hardest to reach. Accessing remote rainforests, high mountain ranges, vast deserts, polar caps and oceanic regions can be difficult, costly, and dangerous. They don’t have cell towers or power lines, and sending people out to check sensors manually isn’t just impractical, it’s unsustainable. IoT for climate monitoring has opened the door, but the logistics of gathering reliable, continuous data in these places remain challenging.
One essential component of success is collaboration. Environmental monitoring is not something one agency or organization tackles alone. Governments, NGOs, researchers, universities and private tech providers all bring pieces of the puzzle, from scientific insight to provision of physical sensor networks, to the connectivity and platforms that make data flow. When these threads are woven together, they provide a picture accurate and complete enough to act on, but without them, data is disparate, narrow, and potentially unreliable.
Today, many of these agencies rely on proprietary satellite IoT to monitor the environment and keep people safe.
Environmental Monitoring via Proprietary Satellite IoT
Proprietary satellite IoT refers to connectivity solutions built on closed, vendor specific satellite networks, platforms and hardware. With a history of reliability and low latency, they’re trusted for mission critical applications, and form the backbone of systems that send wildfire alerts from remote forests, trigger flood warnings when rivers surge, or provide SOS capabilities for Rangers far from cellular coverage. These use cases work, and they save lives.
For reference, here’s a quick refresher on a couple of established proprietary satellite services, but feel free to skip ahead if you’re already familiar.
Iridium runs a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite network using L-band spectrum. Coverage is truly global, including the poles, and terminals don’t require antenna pointing. For IoT, Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD) and Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) handle low-power telemetry and tracking, while Iridium Certus 100 provides lightweight IP backhaul at up to 88 kbps down / 22 kbps up.
Viasat (through its acquisition of Inmarsat) operates primarily in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) at ~35,786 km. GEO satellites appear fixed in the sky, so you get near-global coverage (excluding the polar regions) but you do need to point the antenna and you’ll see higher latency than LEO. Viasat’s proprietary IoT options – IoT Nano and IoT Pro (previously called BGAN M2M) – are chosen for economical, stable, and reliable links where there’s a clear line of sight to the satellite.
Proprietary satellite IoT is trusted because it is proven. Networks like Iridium and Viasat offer global reach, near-real time communication, a broad range of data capacity tariffs, and connectivity that covers the most inaccessible global locations. In situations where seconds or accurate time-stamped data count, that reliability is non-negotiable.
But this approach does come with trade offs. Proprietary satellite IoT devices have added cost, limiting their widespread deployment. Agencies also face vendor lock in due to a lack of interoperability. And the data can end up siloed, with wildfire sensors on one platform, flood gauges on another, and SOS devices elsewhere. The result is a patchwork of insights that are difficult to unify. We’ve previously highlighted the problem of global data disparity and its impacts. The tension between reliability, availability and scalability, proven systems and siloed ones, defines the current status quo.
The Expanding Toolkit: LoRaWAN and NTN
Over the last decade, LoRaWAN broadened the toolkit for low power, local sensor networking, and now 3GPP’s Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) are emerging to extend cellular protocols such as NB-IoT and LTE into areas with no terrestrial networks.
Market Incumbents:
LoRaWAN
An open, community-driven protocol maintained by the LoRa Alliance, LoRaWAN gained momentum from ~2015 onward for low power, low cost sensing. It’s ideal for clustered local or regional deployments (e.g., watersheds, forest plots, landslide corridors). Sensors communicate to nearby gateways; those gateways then backhaul data to the cloud, often over satellite in truly remote sites. LoRaWAN is inexpensive, flexible, and easy to deploy, but coverage is only as broad as your gateway network – there’s no inherent global reach.
Proprietary Satellite IoT
Where time- or mission-critical alerts and global reach are non-negotiable, proprietary satellite services remain best in class. They offer deterministic delivery, global footprints (often including the poles), and proven reliability for safety of life or regulatory use cases. The trade off is cost, which can limit the number of sensors you can field at scale.
Market Newcomers:
Standards-Based Satellite (NTN)
3GPP Release 17 (2022) brought Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) to life; extensions that take familiar cellular IoT into space. In practical terms, standards like NB-IoT and LTE-M can now connect via satellite using widely available, standards-based chipsets instead of proprietary hardware.
For remote environmental IoT, that shift really matters. A unified ecosystem means terrestrial and satellite links share the same standards, improving roaming, module availability, and making it easier to switch suppliers. Devices can stay simpler too: the same class of modules can reach the network by satellite when there’s no ground coverage, reducing hardware variants across deployments. And as NTN coverage and device support expand, you can scale sensor footprints without redesigning your stack – ideal for basin-scale hydrology, fire risk perimeters, or multi-site geohazard monitoring.
It’s important to be aware that NTN coverage is still limited, so availability will be patchy for some time. Data rates are small (under 50 KB per month) and duty cycles are constrained, so plan for tiny payloads, compression, and aggressive batching. Applications must be latency-tolerant, with buffering, retry, and out-of-order handling. Unlike cellular, antenna positioning and sky view become first-order concerns, and power budgets are tighter due to longer air-time and higher TX demands.
In this expanding marketplace, there is no single winner in terms of connectivity choices. The toolkit is widening, broadening opportunities and use cases.
Within the current climate (pun intended), with high demand and fast evolving tech, the expertise lies in matching the right connectivity to the right environmental challenge, and future proofing the technologies selected.
Marine Pollution Tracking
For high-priority stations (spills, hypoxia, critical metrics), proprietary satellite IoT delivers dependable, low latency, global links for continuous reporting.
For dense regional warning nets, NTN NB-IoT can enable hundreds of small, cheap nodes (open-ocean coverage still limited). Near shore, LoRaWAN meshes clusters and backhauls via cellular or satellite, avoiding coastal congestion.
Wildfire Detection
For split-second fire alerts, proprietary satellite links are best: low latency, global reach, reliability when smoke / weather / power knock out terrestrial, and reserved capacity that avoids congestion in crises.
For predictive fire risk monitoring across thousands of low cost sensors, NTN NB-IoT excels: standards-based, massively scalable, and usable as primary or failover connectivity.
Flood Monitoring
For dam breach or flash flood alarms, proprietary satellite IoT is best: real time, low latency alerts that bypass damaged ground networks and keep working when towers or power fail.
For regional flood modelling – rainfall, soil moisture, groundwater – use NB-IoT NTN or LoRaWAN clusters with satellite backhaul: dense, long term data at scale for forecasting and early mitigation.
Biodiversity Tracking
For remote conservation patrols, proprietary satellite GNSS trackers are essential, delivering reliable two way comms, SOS, and precise location in forests or mountains.
For large scale tagging (cattle, migration studies), standards-based NTN NB-IoT fits: smaller, cheaper tags sending intermittent updates, delivering months-to-years battery/solar life and scalable data for movement, breeding, and habitat models.
Soil and Water Quality Monitoring
For regional farm networks and watersheds, choose by balancing coverage, power use, and data density. Proprietary satellite IoT fits isolated test sites or large estates needing guaranteed uptime and two way control.
Standards-based NTN NB-IoT enables thousands of low cost soil/moisture sensors across distributed fields, ideal for basin-wide modelling and predictive irrigation.
Glacial and Permafrost Monitoring
For polar or alpine deployments with extreme conditions and no cellular, proprietary L-band satellite IoT is the only mature option for real-time, all weather, pole to pole links.
Where coverage allows, NB-IoT NTN can send intermittent, timestamped updates – think small payloads and higher latency.
Exploring the Deployment Realities
Let’s talk coverage: How “global” are these options?
- Proprietary Satellite IoT
Iridium: Truly global, pole to pole, provided the device has a clear view of the sky. No antenna pointing required.
Viasat (Inmarsat L-band): Near-global footprint excluding the extreme polar regions; requires antenna pointing for a stable link. Best when you want economical, stable links, and have a clear line of sight to the satellite. - LoRaWAN
Coverage is inherently regional: each node talks to a nearby gateway. In open areas, practical node-to-gateway distances are roughly up to ~15–16 km (terrain and clutter can reduce this). If your monitored area is wider than that, you either give each endpoint its own satellite connection, or build a local LoRaWAN network and backhaul one or more satellite-connected gateways. - NTN (e.g. NTN NB-IoT, NTN LTE Cat-1, NTN LTE-M)
Coverage is early and patchy. Commercial availability today is concentrated in specific countries/regions with little to no ocean coverage (view current NTN coverage map from Viasat). Viasat has the most coverage, but is restricting services to areas where there is sufficient demand; thus, as more hardware / devices reach the market, and the use cases become clearer, we would anticipate coverage growing.
Reducing Silos With a Unified Data Plane
Successful deployments depend on how easily devices, platforms, and networks exchange data. The practical goal is a single pane of glass where you can see, manage, and act on data from mixed networks – proprietary satellite, NTN (as it rolls out), and, where available, cellular- without rewriting everything each time you add a site or change a bearer.
A pragmatic way to get there is an API-first platform that’s device- and network-agnostic. For example, Cloudloop is designed to ingest data from heterogeneous bearers and present it through one interface. It doesn’t make coverage universal, but it can reduce integration work and lower the risk of data silos as footprints grow.
Security: Keeping Environmental Data Trustworthy
Environmental monitoring data increasingly informs safety, regulation, and policy, so protecting its integrity matters as much as collecting it. For remote environmental monitoring, satellite IoT reduces exposure to common internet borne threats because links don’t rely on local terrestrial infrastructure or public ISPs. In practice, that means fewer attack surfaces between field sensors and your platform.
Advantages and limitations of satellite IoT security:
High Encryption Standards by Default
Professionally operated, mature satellite networks such as those operated by Iridium and Viasat encrypt data using AES-256, a symmetric block cipher algorithm recognized for its security and efficiency.
Avoids Man-in-the-Middle Attacks
Satellite networks are much harder to compromise via MitM attacks due to their direct transmission methods, reduced ISP reliance, high-altitude signal paths, and strong encryption. However, they’re not completely immune. The means by which data is routed from the ground station to the user’s application needs consideration.
There are several options here with varying degrees of security:
- VPNs / Firewalls – The most commonly deployed method for securing data being moved from a ground station is to utilize a combination of firewalls and VPNs.
- Private Wire – Private wire connections create a direct, secure link between a satellite ground station and a customer’s network, bypassing the public internet entirely. This can be achieved through dedicated leased lines or private Layer 2 circuits (such as MPLS or SD-WAN). This results in a closed, high-security data path that prevents exposure to cyber threats like DDoS attacks or data interception.
The bottom line: Satellite won’t eliminate risk, but its independence from local infrastructure, combined with private routing, encryption, segmentation, and failover, gives environmental programs a materially stronger default security posture than relying on terrestrial connectivity alone.
From Insight to Action: Key Considerations for Choosing the Right Connectivity
Understanding these findings is just the start. The next step is applying them, choosing the right technology mix to meet real world monitoring goals while staying compliant, scalable, and resilient.
“We can only afford a handful of sensors, but we need scale.”
Utilize NB-IoT/NTN NB-IoT for assured security or LoRaWAN sensor networks with satellite backhaul for affordable, dense deployments.
“We need reliable alerts for emergencies.”
Use a proven, proprietary L-band satellite IoT link e.g., Iridium SBD/IMT or Certus 100, or Viasat IoT Nano/Pro that’s stress-tested for mission critical use.
“Coverage is patchy, how do we know what will actually work in our region?”
Iridium’s proprietary services are global, LoRaWAN is regional, and NTN NB-IoT is emerging. Check coverage maps for more detailed information, or speak to a remote connectivity professional.
“Our systems don’t talk to each other.”
Utilize Cloudloop functionality with APIs for interoperability. Consume your data in a way that is right for the collaboration, including sending data securely to multiple (pre-integrated) destinations.
“We’re worried about data security and compliance.”
Choose partners that prioritize end-to-end encryption, secure APIs, and compliant cloud hosting. Ground Control’s Cloudloop platform ensures data integrity across hybrid networks while maintaining full customer control over data destinations.
“We can’t do this alone.”
With proven expertise, Ground Control is a valued technical partner, not just a provider. Helping NGOs, agencies, and companies to deploy hybrid, collaborative solutions.
Building a Smarter, More Connected Planet
The future of environmental monitoring isn’t about replacing one connectivity technology with another; it’s about building hybrid IoT networks that combine the best of each. Proprietary satellite IoT will continue to deliver life- and mission-critical reliability, providing resilient links and accurate, time stamped data from even the most remote regions. Meanwhile, standards-based NB-IoT and LoRaWAN are unlocking scalable, low-cost sensor deployments bringing environmental data collection to new levels of density and insight.
When agencies, NGOs, and research partners collaborate across these ecosystems, we can turn isolated measurements into continuous, planetary-scale intelligence.
Looking to Find Your Connectivity Partner ?
At Ground Control, we bridge today’s proven systems with tomorrow’s scalable standards, helping organizations deploy what works now while preparing for what’s next. If you’re exploring how to expand your monitoring capability, talk to our team about designing a solution that fits your goals, your environment, and your stakeholder needs.
Email hello@groundcontrol.com or complete the form, and we’ll be in touch within one working day.
Five Design Considerations for Energy Conservation in Remote IoT Applications
Energy consumption and industrial ambition toward becoming Net Zero are of global consequence. On the macro scale, as we build more and utilize more digitally and electronically, “the ongoing electrification of everything” makes it imperative to find ways of conserving and managing power consumption.
Integrators and engineers have managed this for some time, born of necessity and innovative thinking. In the last decade, IoT has revolutionized measuring and monitoring the impact of industrial energy consumption and its environmental impact. This involves developing ecological monitoring, renewable energy use cases, HVAC systems for facility management, and IoT energy monitoring systems for better efficiency in utilities and factories.
The Energy Impact and Growth of IoT Development
However, the world’s data demands continue to grow, not least from the massive processing power required by AI / machine learning technologies. UK National Grid CEO John Pettigrew called data centers a source of systemic stress, saying, “Power demands are expected to increase by 500% over the next 10 years.”
A peer-reviewed study in the same report estimates that AI power consumption could reach between 85 and 134 terawatt hours (TWh) annually by 2027. (That is in the range of what Sweden and Argentina each use in a year and would constitute about 0.5% of what the world currently uses.)
AIOTI, an industry alliance tasked with advancing Europe’s digital and green transformations, has identified energy efficiency as one of its 18 strategic research and innovation priorities. The goal is to evolve IoT technologies into an integrated digital ecosystem to advance hyper-automation in all industrial sectors. Specifically, AIOTI identifies three research topics: energy harvesting, with its potential to remove the dependency on batteries for power and their need for periodic replacement; the energy efficiency of hardware, and the energy efficiency of data processing. More on these in our satellite use cases later.
Why is Energy a Design Constraint in Satellite IoT?
Satellite IoT is a means of transmitting very remote IoT data over satellite. Satellite modems can be paired with individual sensors or can backhaul the data from LPWAN gateways. Power usage is often a constraint within these types of IoT applications because mains power is frequently unavailable. Therefore, it matters that the system’s energy consumption and a ‘Low Power Mindset’ are part of the IoT system design process.
Five Power Conservation Examples in Remote Satellite IoT
Here, we explore five design considerations in Satellite IoT that have helped remotely manage IoT energy consumption. Utilizing what energy is available, making it go further, and where possible, reducing the industrial carbon footprint.
1. Minimize What Data You Send, and how Frequently You Send it
Low power design considerations were recently explored in our webinar for IoT Central, covering Data Optimization, Interoperability, Coverage and Power Consumption in Satellite IoT design. Deep-diving into the section on power, the more data bandwidth a satellite IoT system utilizes, and the more frequently it sends data, the more power-hungry the satellite IoT device will be.
A key takeaway from the discussion: since both the send and idle mode for the device consume energy, keeping the device send mode to a minimum and utilizing a satellite device with low resting energy consumption in idle, are important considerations. This video snippet discusses the key design considerations for preserving power in Satellite IoT design. For a longer summary of the webinar, you might enjoy our post: A Guide to Satellite IoT for Cellular IoT Specialists
2. Data Processing at the Edge
Every time data is sent over a network, there is some level of energy cost in terms of power used; this is no exception with satellite networks. Satellite IoT connectivity requires more power than terrestrial networks to establish and maintain communication links with satellites in space. Edge computing utilizes light algorithms and task offloading to execute intensive tasks at the network’s edge. It can conserve energy on satellite IoT devices, make smart task decisions, decrease task delay, and reduce the volume of data sent over the network.
RockREMOTE’S edge computing capabilities have helped reduce system energy by analyzing data at the data collection point. Its capabilities include reporting by exception, defining data prioritization, and the ability to compress the data at the edge before sending it over the satellite network. With LTE-M, Certus 100, and IMT capabilities, the device switches between networks for uninterrupted connectivity. This provides 100% connectivity, balancing data transfer costs, appropriate network selection, and minimizing network energy consumption. This short video talks more about RockREMOTE’s edge processing capabilities in a use case on African Game Reserves.
3. Energy Harvesting – Solar Energy for Satellite IoT Sustainability
Energy harvesting can provide an inexhaustible electrical energy supply captured from renewable sources: solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, tidal, and wave energy. Depending on the application and the supply, this energy can supplement or replace a primary cell or battery. Harvested energy can be used to power the circuitry directly or stored in the buffer until needed.
A recent use case for RockBLOCK RTU involved a customer measuring water levels in fracking sites in northern Canada. The localities were remote, unmanned, and unpowered, and temperatures frequently dropped below -32°C (-25.6°F). The solution needed to be self-powered, extremely robust, and reliable. The RockBLOCK RTU satellite transceiver is highly ruggedized to cope with harsh weather conditions and has very low power requirements. Accordingly, it consumes less than 380mW with a five-minute value transmission interval. Connecting it to a small solar panel array, combined with a lithium-based cell, harvested more than enough solar power to send two daily messages over satellite, plus an immediate alert if water levels exceeded predefined parameters.
4. Power and Cabling Efficiencies with Power over Ethernet (PoE)
Piggybacking off existing power supply with PoE eliminates the need for a separate power supply by delivering DC power to a device from the existing Ethernet infrastructure. Strictly speaking, this example means that the power cabling already exists, and a power supply for other technology is available to share. Think offshore platforms, ships, or buoys to bring to life some, (not all) examples of this use case: some power, but with limited cellular connectivity. Utilizing PoE to supply the satellite device reduces standby power consumption and overall energy usage.
A centralized power management approach can also enable more efficient resource allocation and reduce energy waste compared to individual power adapters for each connected device. PoE standards, such as IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at, include power-saving mechanisms like sleep modes and low-power states. This enables connected devices to operate more efficiently and intelligently, managing power consumption based on usage patterns leading to overall energy savings.
The pictured RockREMOTE Mini keeps satellite device power consumption very low, with less than 0.25W in receive mode. In addition to its optimized power consumption, it has two power supply options: a 10-30V supply or PoE+ (802.3at). This flexibility provides a convenient and efficient solution for powering the device and eliminates the need for a separate power source, reducing installation cost and design complexity.
5. Pulse Width Modulation in Remote Locations
Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) is a technique for controlling the amount of power delivered to an electronic device by rapidly switching the power on and off. The key to PWM is controlling the duty cycle, which is the percentage of time the signal is “on” versus the time it is “off” during each cycle.
Imagine a light dimmer that can adjust the brightness of a light. Instead of providing a steady flow of electricity, the dimmer rapidly switches the light on and off. The average brightness of the light depends on the proportion of the time it is on versus the time it is off:
High Duty Cycle: If the light is on 90% of the time and off 10% of the time, it will be very bright.
Low Duty Cycle: If the light is on 10% of the time and off 90% of the time, it will be dim.
PWM works similarly with other devices, like motors, where it controls speed, or heaters, where it controls temperature.
In the vast, sparsely populated Australian Outback, isolated and off-grid locations such as cattle stations and small farms require satellite technology to manage solar power systems for water pumps, electric fences, and communications equipment, ensuring continuous operation. Ensuring the battery life of the equipment is essential to keeping everything in operation and managing energy usage efficiency.
The RockBLOCK RTU’s PWM controls the battery charging current from connected solar panels. By adjusting the duty cycle, the charge controller regulates the voltage and current, preventing overcharging and optimizing battery life. The RockBLOCK RTU Micrologger device is designed to operate with minimal power, which is crucial for keeping the remote installations running without over-drawing energy from the overall system. Triggering on/off switching can be key to managing resources, conserving, and managing the power supply, and extending battery lifetime in remote and/or unmanned locations.
With power supply and energy management as consistent considerations in developing satellite IoT projects, these use cases highlight the variety of innovations that have been used to navigate the physical, logistical, and infrastructure limitations of remote off-grid locations. Once the parameters of the Satellite IoT project are established, often the most appropriate solution is obvious. Our engineers love a challenge, so if there is an energy constraint holding your remote IoT project back, get in touch, and our technical and development teams will be happy to help.
Would you like to know more?
If you’re tackling an remote connectivity challenge, with constraints on power, we can almost certainly help.
Call us on +44 (0) 1452 751940 (UK) or +1.805.783.4600 (USA); email hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form.
We have over 20 years’ experience designing and building satellite communication devices, and our expert team is standing by to offer support and suggestions.
Harnessing Water, Defending Data: Cybersecurity in Hydropower and Dam Facilities
Dams and hydropower facilities have long been attack targets, with a history that spans wartime conflicts. During World War II, the British Royal Air Force formed a group of pilots known as the Dambusters. Their mission: to destroy critical dams in Germany; considered ideal targets due to the significant disruption they could inflict on both water and power supplies.
In 2023 however, the landscape has somewhat shifted. The global cost of cybercrime is projected to soar to $8 trillion. Due to the immense value of data and the potential for widespread disruption, energy and utility companies continue to be prime targets.
Today, the hydropower and dam industries, like many others, stand at a crossroads where innovation and cybersecurity converge. Even a seemingly minor misstep, for instance, untimely dam operations, can unleash havoc upon nearby towns, significantly hampering supply chains and inflicting widespread destruction upon adjacent regions.
Types of cyber threats: State-sponsored and hobby
Cyber threats can be split into two main types. The first is state-sponsored cyber attacks. Those that are planned and funded by governments or nation-states. Kevin Curran, professor of cyber security at Ulster University, recently described cyberattacks by the UK’s enemies as becoming “relentless”. As an example, the Cozy Bear and LockBit hacker groups are believed to be associated with one or more intelligence agencies of Russia, the latter having known links to Russian nationals.
Secondly, hobby-hacker attacks. These hackers are usually motivated by either monetary gain or a wish to cause mischief. One of the most notorious examples is the Colonial Pipeline attack. The company paid the hacker group known as DarkSide 75 bitcoin ($4.4 million) to obtain a decryption key which enabled the company’s IT staff to regain control of its systems.
Growing intricacies of infrastructure create more vulnerabilities
The rising integration of Internet of Things (IoT) devices and sensors within the hydropower and dam sector has brought greater infrastructure complexity, creating more vulnerabilities for several reasons:
- Increasing number of attack surfaces: Every device connected to the network becomes a potential target for attackers. The more IoT devices, sensors and so on that are introduced, the further the range for potential attacks is increased.
- Device security: The substantial volume and often remote location of IoT devices increases the difficulty of keeping firmware and software up-to-date. Moreover, their physical dispersion can expose them to theft and tampering.
- Lack of standardization: Different manufacturers exercise varying levels of security. The lack of standardisation can make it challenging to implement consistent security practices across all devices.
- Legacy systems: Many critical infrastructure systems still rely on older, legacy technology that may not have been designed with modern cybersecurity standards in mind. These systems are often more vulnerable to attacks.
- Interoperability challenges: Ensuring that different IoT devices and systems work together can be challenging. This can lead to security compromises to enable connectivity, potentially weakening overall security.
- Network visibility: Depending on the network’s connectivity and device location, a 360 view can be difficult to achieve and maintain, making it more difficult to detect and respond to cyber attacks.
- Data privacy: IoT devices often collect and transmit sensitive data. Inadequate data protection measures can lead to data breaches, compromising privacy and potentially providing valuable information to attackers.
The convergence of operation and information technology
Traditionally operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT) data streams remained distinct, which had the benefit of keeping OT systems ‘air gapped’ from the internet, and therefore at limited risk from hacking. As technology unifies OT and IT, it brings both efficiencies and risks. The efficiencies are numerous: by combining SCADA data with the systems that manage physical infrastructure, you can autonomously optimise performance.
But because OT systems haven’t been targets in the past, they’re not always built with security in mind. Passwords are often left at the default character string; remote monitoring for suspicious behaviour hasn’t been implemented; patches are not implemented as frequently as they should be.
In this evolving landscape, it’s critical that security teams are aware of these vulnerabilities and take steps to address them, safeguarding critical infrastructure in the hydropower and dam sector.
Lessons from successful cyber attacks
A successful cyber attack involved Queensland’s Sunwater, a water supplier targeted in a nine-month-long breach. The breach, occurring between August 2020 and May 2021, exploited vulnerabilities in an older system version, granting unauthorised access to customer information stored on their web server. While the hackers didn’t compromise financial or customer data, they left behind suspicious files, redirecting visitor traffic to an online platform.
The subsequent Water 2021 report underscored the importance of immediate action to rectify ongoing security weaknesses, emphasising software updates, stronger passwords, and vigilant network traffic monitoring as crucial safeguards.
In another notable case, the LockerGoga ransomware group inflicted significant damage upon Norsk Hydro. Norsk Hydro was forced to shut down multiple production facilities, impacting 35,000 employees, across 40 countries and resulting in approximately $71 million in financial losses. The cyberattack stemmed from an employee unknowingly opening an infected email three months prior.
Norsk Hydro’s response, however, garnered accolades. The company chose not to pay the ransom, instead engaging with Microsoft’s cybersecurity team to restore operations and remained committed to transparency throughout the ordeal. As Torstein Gimnes, Corporate Information Security Officer emphasised – “You need to rebuild your infrastructure to be safe and be sure that the attacker is not still part of it.”
An immediate IT shutdown was implemented to prevent further spread and only trusted backups facilitated by Microsoft’s team were used. Following the attack, a commitment to employee training, multi-factor authentication, regular updates, and resilient backup solutions were introduced to bolster security.
These cyber attacks underscore the importance of proactive measures and resilience in the face of evolving threats and crucially, they highlight the importance of engaging and sharing knowledge between peers. As Eric Doerr, General Manager of the Microsoft Security Response Center puts it – “When companies do this, it makes us all better and makes the attackers work harder.”
Ensuring the security of critical components in hydropower and dam facilities
Assess cyber risks
- Identify critical assets: Which assets are most important within the facility/network?
- Assess potential risks: What are the potential threats to the identified critical assets? Data breaches, malware attacks, etc.
- Prioritise risks: Which potential risks are more likely to occur and which would have the most significant impact? By prioritising risks, companies can focus resources accordingly.
Mitigate cyber risks
1. Safeguard data
Ensuring data security encompasses data encryption and authentication protocols, coupled with monitoring and restricting physical access to facilities. While firewalls and VPNs serve as effective safeguards when data traverses public internet infrastructure, companies can mitigate these risks entirely with the deployment of private lines or a secure private satellite network like TSAT – designed specifically for SCADA data.
In addition, as mentioned above, recent trends show organisations gravitating toward a unified data stream for both IT and OT. Companies wishing to do this must ensure they have appropriate control system boundary protection to prevent unauthorised access, for example, SD-WAN coupled with a next generation firewall.
2. Secure physical access
Physical security measures not only deter potential threats but also serve as the first line of defence against cyberattacks. By strictly limiting and monitoring who can physically access a facility, organisations can significantly reduce the risk of malicious actors gaining direct entry to sensitive systems and data.
Further, when physical access is under surveillance, companies can identify unauthorised access or unusual activity, allowing them to swiftly intervene and halt a hacker’s progress.
3. Prioritize firmware and software updates
Software and firmware updates are essential tools in addressing known vulnerabilities, strengthening system resilience, and ensuring the integrity of critical software components. By regularly applying updates, organisations stay ahead of cyber threats that often exploit outdated software to breach systems and steal sensitive information.
Firmware updates for hardware devices, on the other hand, enhance device functionality and bolster security by patching potential vulnerabilities. Emphasising the importance of prompt updates and establishing a structured update management process is key. If your dam or hydropower facility is in a remote, unmanned location, ensure that you have the ability to remotely protect your infrastructure with over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates.
4. Staff training
Human errors often open the door to cyber incidents, so it’s crucial organisations equip their employees with the latest cybersecurity knowledge. Early detection and response, facilitated by well-informed and vigilant employees, can prove instrumental in preventing breaches. A prime example is a vigilant staff member who thwarted an attempt to tamper with sodium hydroxide levels in Florida’s water supply last year.
Moreover, robust incident response plans are essential. Employees must know how to contain incidents, restore systems, and investigate root causes. Ultimately organisations need to be confident that if their facility does experience a cyber attack, staff can react efficiently and effectively. Bolstered by continuous training, workshops, webinars, and the cultivation of a security-conscious culture, enhances cybersecurity resilience. It also promotes information sharing among peers, strengthening collective efforts to combat cyber threats.
5. Redundancy and backup
Redundancy and backup systems serve as critical safeguards against unforeseen vulnerabilities and disruptions within network infrastructure. By creating duplicate or alternative pathways for data transmission and network operations, redundancy measures ensure that even if a primary system or connection fails, there’s an immediate and seamless switch to a secondary, secure option. This not only mitigates the risk of single points of failure but also enhances the overall reliability of the system.
One of our largest clients has satellite implemented as their third connectivity failover (cellular first, fibre second). Their satellite setup hasn’t failed once in 27 years and is the system they consider the most reliable. With the hydropower and dam sector increasingly reliant on interconnected digital systems, redundancy and backup solutions stand as formidable defences, ensuring continuous operations and protecting against potential cyber threats and disruptions.
The above list is by no means exhaustive, but it does highlight a fundamental truth: In the constantly evolving landscape of cybersecurity, proactive measures are a necessity. Anticipating and addressing vulnerabilities before they become threats is pivotal to achieving and maintaining robust cybersecurity practices. If you would like to explore your connectivity and/or data security options with our experienced team, don’t hesitate to get in touch by emailing hello@groundcontrol.com.
Secure Your Infrastructure
Our team are experts in getting data from hard-to-reach places – so you don’t have to be.
To talk to the team about your connectivity options, challenges and associated data security, simply fill in the form.
Unleashing Precision Forestry: how Satellites Facilitate Decision-Making and Automation
While the Mining industry has been applying advanced analytics and AI to its operational technology for some time, Forestry has lagged behind in terms of digital data capture, automated operations and optimised decision-making made possible through advanced analytics. But the times are changing.
As McKinsey identified in a 2018 article, the increasing technical sophistication of Forestry’s main customers – pulp, paper, transportation, sawmills, timber traders etc. – has driven the adoption of precision farming technologies. Further, early adopters have used their greater yields and reduced costs as a competitive advantage.
An example of the value of real-time data capture is seen in the mechanised harvesting cut-to-length (CTL) system, evolving in Scandinavia. Traditionally, tree felling and log manufacture are carried out by an operator with a chainsaw; tree trunks are extracted with wheeled skidders or cable systems to the roadside, and then sawn, in situ, into logs. Trunks are connected to cable systems by operators, navigating debris and potential runaway trunks; a manual, dangerous job. Decisions on what log grades to make from each tree trunk are made by the chainsaw operators, guided by a few basic log specifications and prices. There is little automation.
New CTL technology is fully mechanised with a harvester that fells trees and makes logs in one process, paired with a forwarder that moves these logs roadside. The system relies on digital data: cutting instructions are relayed in real-time to the harvesters, where onboard computers optimise the mix of log grades made from each tree, using sensors mounted on the harvester to measure trunk shape and quality. Production data, together with data on machine productivity, and other performance indicators such as fuel efficiency, can be visualised in real-time.
This level of automation and digitalisation increases operational safety while speeding up precision felling and productivity. It gives greater management control, an optimised supply chain, fast value recovery and planning for the next crop. Data on grade outturn from a specific site can inform decisions on what tree species to plant for the next crop, what fertiliser regimen to employ, and at what age to best harvest a crop. Effectively, optimised decision-making via advanced analytics and insight.
Connectivity: why it’s holding Forestry back
The problem with utilising smart industrial equipment is that it’s not that smart without a means of passing data between machines, people, or back-to-base. According to FPInnovations, 60% of forestry operations have no cellular coverage, which “prevents the timely flow of information between the forest and the data centre… we cannot use the productivity tracking technology that’s being used in other sections, such as agriculture.”
Cellular coverage in remote locations, especially covering woodland, mine pits or agricultural fields is often patchy or unavailable and this leaves remote teams and machines disconnected. Recent forestry development has overcome this, to some extent, using geostationary (GEO) satellite technology.
In their 2021 trial project, FPInnovations and partners tested the use of a mobile, private LTE (cellular) network in the forest. An LTE base station was set up at the edge of a cut block, utilising a 30-metre portable cell tower, omnidirectional antenna and tower-mounted amplifier (TMA) to increase signal strength for extended coverage. A satellite terminal was then used to connect the LTE system to the internet.
In this trial, one cell tower covered a 10-kilometre radius. Devices within this radius, including cell phones, tablets and telematics, communicated with the cell tower even while in motion. The GEO satellite service provided the essential backhaul of data. You can read more about the trial here, where the learnings from the project are available.
But this type of solution comes with high initial investment costs, and the use of geostationary satellites can create limitations over more rugged terrain, where a view of the sky is restricted. Devices that connect with geostationary satellites – in orbit 35,786 km above Earth – need to have a clear line of sight to their satellite, which can prove difficult in mountainous and wooded areas. The evolution of the project is to use a satellite transceiver that speaks to satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
The role of LEO satellites in bridging the gaps
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks benefit from lower latency (because of their relative proximity to Earth), and can provide more reliable coverage if there are line-of-sight challenges, or the operation is mobile.
Iridium utilises a mesh of LEO satellites able to communicate with one another, passing data from one satellite to another, until the final destination is reached. Antennas communicating with the mesh network don’t need to be ‘pointed’ towards a single satellite, as data can be picked up by any satellite within the constellation and passed through the network, to the ground station.
This makes this network ideal for mobile IoT applications, and perfect for heavy machinery, or operations that shift in location, such as transitory logger camps. Iridium Certus 100 service can provide ubiquitous connectivity in very remote, forest areas.
Implications for developing precision forestry technologies
Reliable satellite connectivity, be that as the primary form of data connectivity or as a data backhaul for cellular or LoRa networks, creates the foundations for smart precision forestry technology, bringing several exciting digital operational capabilities.
The guaranteed connectivity is essential to the constant stream of data that passes between high-precision heavy machinery and the controller. It may be simple sensory data, such as sudden movements, or hazardous objects detected in the logging zone; a block in the workflow or a major mechanical malfunction. Remote heavy machine monitoring, diagnostics and troubleshooting can also provide advance warning on machine maintenance, saving downtime and redundancy, creating operational efficiency and reducing costs.
Steps towards Forestry digitisation
One obvious consideration for implementing precision forestry technology is the scale of investment relative to the size of the logger operation. For a forestry operation curious to see if the benefits of automation can be realised, satellite IoT devices present a very rapid and low cost means of backhauling data from individual machines, and can be rapidly scaled up or down. They can help logging operations evolve from analogue to digital in incremental ways, depending on the volume of data that needs to be transferred, and the critical nature of what’s being communicated back to base, or between man and machinery.
Automated machinery requires constant data connectivity for safety and autonomous decision-making, whereas maintenance alerts may only be necessary on a report-by-exception basis. For each use case, our technical team is able to advise on the best satellite service to support the operational needs and budget.
The RockREMOTE Rugged provides a fertile opportunity for trialling the benefits of satellite connectivity in a forestry setting. It’s aluminium cased, and built to withstand the roughest of environments. Fixed to a remote asset, like a Forester or Harvester, the device enables satellite data transfer of predictive and preventative maintenance analytics, for example.
Customers with small to moderate-sized Industrial IoT data requirements can utilise Iridium’s IMT message-based service for cost-effective data transfer. For more data-heavy applications and real-time monitoring, the device connects TCP/IP-related data, via the Iridium Certus 100 Airtime service. Certus 100 enables data transfer of up to 200 MB per month with speeds of 22 Kbps up and 88 Kbps down.
As mentioned earlier, it will maintain a reliable connection on the move, and transmit from anywhere with a clear view of the sky. If your devices and assets are already connected to an LTE Cat 1 or Cat 4 cellular network, the Rock Remote Rugged device also offers automatic WAN to satellite failover.
Digitising Forestry offers more opportunities for data insight and application: from advanced forest mapping, sensor-controlled environments and forest nurseries, to the use of drones/UAVs for fire monitoring and precision forestry inventory. Satellite provides the instant infrastructure needed to test and scale projects like these.
Unlock the potential of your data
If you would like help unlocking the potential of data for your next precision forestry project, get in touch. Our technical team would be happy to assist, no matter how big the project or whatever the question…
Navigating Obstacles: Tips for Successful Satellite IoT Implementation
Consulting firm McKinsey has projected that the Internet of Things (IoT) could enable global value between $5.5 trillion – $12.6 trillion by 2030. This estimation encompasses the value derived by consumers using IoT products and services. However, it is predicted that around 65% of this value will come from business-to-business (B2B) applications. And within the B2B sector, the primary drivers of value projected are operation optimisation (41%) and condition-based maintenance (12%).
2030 is still some time away, but how close are we to realising this value?
The IoT has already connected over 14 billion devices worldwide, but being a relatively new technology, it faces its share of challenges and obstacles. According to a recent survey on IoT deployments, only 42% of companies considered their projects successful. However, it’s important to consider that 50% of those surveyed were in the trial or pilot phase, which provides valuable insights into identifying barriers to success. Encouragingly, when compared to the 2020 survey results, the 2023 survey indicates a notable 28% increase in success rates. Additionally, research from ABI reveals that satellite IoT projects have a comparable but increased success rate, with approximately 50% of participants considering their projects successful.
As the adoption and success of IoT continues to accelerate, demonstrating a positive return on investment (ROI) becomes increasingly essential. Here at Ground Control, we are privileged to work on a wide range of IoT deployments every day. Our projects span various industries, from operators seeking to minimise downtime in the Oil and Gas sector, to those in Utilities handling mission-critical data, and even those facilitating telehealth via medical drone deliveries and remote nurse tracking. Drawing on these experiences, we’ve created this article to highlight the challenges we most commonly see and potential solutions to guide you on the path to success. But first…
How to define IoT project success
Defining IoT project success involves aligning project goals with overall objectives, setting specific and measurable KPIs, and quantifying expected benefits and ROI. Establishing baselines and targets, tracking progress, and analysing data against the defined metrics are crucial. In our experience, customers often focus on immediate challenges and short-term gains and this can lead to issues regarding scalability and the ability to adapt to future needs further down the line. When embarking on an IoT installation, regular iteration and improvement can mark the difference between success or not. In short, for many IoT projects success is dependent on companies being proactive.
5 common IoT deployment challenges and potential solutions to overcome them
- Security and privacy concerns
- Connectivity reliability
- Interoperability and integration
- Data management and analytics
- Scalability
1. Challenge: Security and privacy concerns
Within the vast IoT ecosystem, the extensive network of interconnected devices creates numerous potential entry points for cyberattacks. Each connected device becomes a potential vulnerability that malicious actors can exploit. The sheer volume of data generated and transmitted by IoT devices raises significant concerns about privacy. Safeguarding personal information and ensuring data protection become of paramount importance in this interconnected landscape.
From a technical perspective, security emerges as the foremost obstacle in IoT deployments. As IoT solutions continue to evolve, security measures must also advance. It is an ongoing and dynamic process that requires continuous improvement and this inherent characteristic poses significant challenges.
These concerns are further emphasised by notable cyberattacks that have made headlines. In 2021, a cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline forced a temporary shutdown of 5,500 miles of pipeline, impacting critical infrastructure. In another instance, an attempt was made to tamper with the levels of sodium hydroxide in Oldsmar, Florida’s water supply. Additionally, the ‘AcidRain‘ malware attack in 2022 caused severe and prolonged disruptions on a mass scale. This attack targeted and disabled Viasat’s KA-SAT broadband service’s satellite modems, affecting thousands of users in Ukraine and across Europe.
Potential solutions: Secure network design and data encryption
Addressing the security concerns in IoT deployments requires a multi-layered approach to IoT security. Implementing secure network architectures, employing data encryption, practicing best access control practices, and leveraging private network solutions, all strengthen organizations overall security posture in IoT deployments.
- Secure Network Architecture: A robust and secure network architecture is crucial in addressing IoT security concerns. Companies should design their networks with measures such as network segmentation, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems. By dividing the network into segments and implementing firewalls and intrusion detection systems, the impact of potential breaches can be contained, and real-time threat identification and mitigation can be achieved.
- Data Encryption: Protecting IoT data through encryption is paramount. Strong encryption algorithms and secure key management practices should be employed to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information. By encrypting data at rest and in transit, organizations can significantly enhance the security of their IoT deployments.
- Best Practice Access Control: Implementing best practices for access control and identity management is a simple yet effective way to strengthen IoT security. Regularly reviewing access privileges, promptly revoking access for former employees or compromised accounts, and monitoring for suspicious activities all contribute to an enhanced security posture, mitigating potential risks.
- Private and Secure Networks: Depending on the nature of the data handled by an IoT application, a completely secure and private network may be necessary. Solutions like SCADASat provide secure, private networks for handling sensitive data, ensuring end-to-end security and protecting against unauthorized access.
2. Challenge: Connectivity reliability
The success of IoT relies heavily on reliable connectivity. Without a consistent means of transmitting data, the value of IoT is diminished. Obtaining a comprehensive view of operations is crucial for making informed business decisions. Fragmented data can lead to inaccurate insights, resulting in suboptimal business decisions.
Currently, only 25% of the world’s landmass is covered by cell towers. While 5G deployment is underway and will be able to support a much larger volume of devices, the shorter wavelengths mean 5G has a much shorter range than its predecessor. For some deployments, cellular coverage will be sufficient. But for those with assets in remote locations whereby cellular may be intermittent or unavailable, challenges arise; and a staggering 75% of businesses reported struggling with connectivity issues when trialling IoT projects.
Potential solutions: diversify connectivity portfolio, implement redundant network architectures and regular maintenance
Diversifying your connectivity portfolio involves adopting multiple connectivity technologies, including cellular, satellite, and LPWAN, to create a more resilient network infrastructure. By leveraging diverse connectivity options, organisations can minimise the impact of network outages, ensure continuous data transmission and balance costs. Just one example and one we’re increasingly seeing is satellite alongside LoRaWAN. Typically, sensors connected via LoRaWAN transmit data to a hub; the hub then optimises the data payload to reduce transmission costs, and from there transmits the data packet via cellular where and when available, and satellite when LTE is unavailable.
Implementing redundant network architectures is another effective strategy. This entails establishing backup systems and redundant connections to provide alternate pathways for data transmission. Redundancy mitigates the risk of single points of failure and enhances the reliability of the IoT network, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity even during network disruptions. One of our largest clients actually have satellite implemented as their third failover (cellular first, fibre second). Their satellite setup hasn’t failed once in 27 years and is the system they consider the most reliable.
What’s more, regular maintenance is vital for sustaining reliable connectivity. Conducting regular inspections, monitoring network performance, and performing necessary updates and maintenance tasks help identify and resolve potential issues proactively.
3. Challenge: Interoperability and integration
IoT projects encounter hurdles in achieving interoperability and integration across devices and systems. Inconsistent protocols, standards, and proprietary technologies create barriers to seamless data exchange and collaboration. These challenges result in data fragmentation, scalability limitations, and increased complexity in managing integrated IoT environments.
Potential solutions: APIs, middleware and gateway devices
Despite some really promising and exciting developments, it’s likely that widespread, tried and tested, and truly seamless interoperability – including device and connectivity – is a few years away. So many companies will still need to either utilize multiple SIM cards, and/or devices to make their network work for their IoT deployment. But open standards and protocols play a crucial role in addressing interoperability and integration challenges. By adopting open standards, organizations can ensure compatibility and seamless communication between different IoT devices and systems.
Additionally implementing robust APIs facilitates smooth integration and interoperation, enabling data exchange and interoperability across diverse components. Moreover, leveraging middleware solutions and gateway devices helps bridge the gap between incompatible technologies, enhancing interoperability and integration capabilities.
4. Challenge: Data management and analytics
Data management and analytics pose critical challenges in IoT projects. The sheer volume and diversity of data generated by connected devices make it daunting to collect, store, process, and derive meaningful insights. Organisations struggle to handle the velocity and real-time processing requirements of IoT data. Ensuring data quality, integrity, and security across heterogeneous data sources is another significant challenge. Furthermore, scalability issues arise as the number of devices and data sources increases.
Potential Solutions: Data management platforms, analytics tools and machine learning algorithms
Organisations can address data management and analytics challenges in IoT projects by adopting comprehensive data management platforms. These platforms facilitate efficient data collection, integration, and storage from diverse sources, ensuring data quality and reliability. Advanced analytics tools empower organisations to process and analyse IoT data efficiently and effectively, extracting valuable insights for informed decision-making.
What’s more, machine learning algorithms and predictive analytics can be used to identify patterns and drive actionable intelligence. When used appropriately, these can ensure companies can drive true value from their data and thus IoT deployment.
5. Challenge: Scalability
When scaling an IoT project, various challenges become more pronounced. The costs associated with scaling can be significant, including expenses for hardware, connectivity, data storage, and maintenance. Managing and maintaining the project also becomes more complex and expensive as the number of devices and systems increases.
Battery life and power consumption pose significant challenges in scaled IoT projects. With more devices consuming more power, effectively managing power consumption and extending battery lives becomes crucial.
Scaling also intensifies challenges in data interoperability, security, and management. Ensuring interoperability and compatibility between devices and systems becomes more complex as numbers increase. Robust security measures must be implemented to protect against the growing risks of security breaches. Additionally, managing and processing the vast amounts of data generated by IoT devices becomes a significant challenge that requires suitable infrastructure and tools.
Potential Solutions: Prioritize scalable architecture, carefully consider device choices and leverage edge computing
Often scale is where in-house server infrastructure falls short for IoT applications. Cloud infrastructure for IoT applications encompasses not only traditional data processing and storage services but also gateway services that facilitate data collection and device interaction. These include HTTP/MQTT servers and WebSocket servers. Scalability is a crucial factor when designing cloud infrastructure for IoT. As your device count increases, your cloud infrastructure must seamlessly scale alongside it. IoT cloud platforms offer superior scalability compared to physical servers maintained in-house. Leading cloud service providers including AWS, Azure, GCP, or Macrometa can all provide robust and scalable solutions.
Implementing edge computing can also alleviate the burden on centralised cloud infrastructure and enhance scalability. By performing data processing and analysis at the edge of the network, closer to the IoT devices, you can reduce latency, minimise bandwidth requirements, and improve overall system performance.
Additionally, it’s important to evaluate network providers that can support your scaling requirements and ensure seamless connectivity across your IoT ecosystem. We’d recommend considering solutions such as low power, wide area networks (LPWAN) or satellite as both offer extended range and scalability.
To address challenges of increased power consumption, companies can explore energy-efficient IoT devices, implement power-saving features such as sleep modes, and utilise power management techniques to prolong battery life. Moreover, alternative power sources, such as solar or kinetic energy, can prove key for long-term sustainability.
Security should always be a top priority, but as mentioned, when scaling this is even more crucial. Companies can strengthen security by adopting a multi-layered approach. Incorporate encryption techniques, secure authentication protocols, and regular security audits. Implement secure coding practices and provide ongoing training to your team to enhance security awareness and ensure compliance with industry best practices.
The above list is by no means exhaustive, but we hope it highlights the importance of staying proactive. By acknowledging the evolving nature of IoT, the improving success rates, and the valuable insights gained during pilot phases, organisations can overcome hurdles and capitalise on the immense potential offered by IoT deployments.
Want some advice on your IoT project?
Navigate to IoT success with Ground Control’s expertise and global support.
As a trusted partner for IoT projects worldwide, we have helped businesses across diverse industries achieve their goals. Complete the form below to start your journey with us.
Unlocking the Full Potential of IoT: How Satellite Modules are Redefining Connectivity
Satellite IoT modules are transforming the way companies interact with their customers, increase operational efficiency, and gain insights into their business operations. Delivering truly global, reliable coverage, these modules enable organisations to unlock the full potential of the Internet of Things (IoT).
The latest research from IoT Analytics estimates that by the end of 2023, the IoT will be responsible for 16 billion active devices. But given the importance of reliable connectivity, how many of these devices will be satellite-enabled?
Source: IoT Analytics Research, State of IoT 2023
Note from authors: IoT connections do not include any computers, laptops, fixed phone, cellphones, or consumers’ tablets. Counted are active nodes/devices or gateways that concentrate the end-sensors, not every sensor/actuator. Simple one-directional communications technology not considered (e.g. RFID, NFC). Wired includes ethernet and fieldbuses (e.g. connected industrial PLCs or I/O modules); Cellular includes 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G; LPWA includes unlicensed low-power networks; WPAN includes Bluetooth, Zigbee, Z-Wave or similar, WLAN includes Wi-Fi and related protocols; WNAN includes non-short-range mesh, such as Wi-SUN; Unclassified proprietary networks include any range.
As you might expect, IoT connectivity continues to be dominated by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular IoT. But interestingly, the CAGR for each of these is predicted to decrease, in some cases significantly (cellular from 200% to 87%) by 2027. In contrast, satellite IoT connections are projected to grow from 6 million to 22 million (at a CAGR of 25%).
What are satellite IoT modules?
Satellite IoT modules or modems are specialised hardware components that enable devices to communicate with satellites and access global connectivity. These modules are designed to be power-efficient, compact, and compatible with existing IoT device architectures. Typically they are used in areas of IoT networks where traditional cellular networks or other forms of terrestrial connectivity are either unavailable or unreliable, such as remote or rural areas.
How do they work?
Simply, satellite IoT modules work by leveraging satellite networks to establish communication between IoT devices and the central infrastructure.
IoT devices such as sensors or trackers are equipped with satellite modems (e.g. the RockBLOCK) that transmit data to satellites orbiting the Earth. Data is sent to a satellite, in this case a satellite within Iridium’s constellation, the satellite then relays the received data down to the ground station.
The ground station serves as a gateway to bridge the communication between the satellite and the Network Operations Centre (NOC), forwarding the data on to the appropriate destination. This can be a cloud platform, a server, or any designated system that collects and manages the IoT data.
How do satellite and terrestrial IoT modules compare?
Terrestrial and satellite IoT modules share many similarities. They both offer the necessary connectivity and processing power for devices to exchange data and come in multiple form factors depending on the deployment requirements. From PCBs intended to be built-in to the sensor array, to fully ruggedised and waterproof devices with integrated processing, storage and security features.
What’s more, all IoT modems require an antenna, the size of which will depend on the signal strength needed. Satellite IoT devices can have surprisingly small antennas if the orbiting satellite service operates in a high frequency, like Iridium (see the patch antenna on the RockBLOCK 9603, which measures just 25 x 25 x 4mm). Other satellite network operators leverage lower frequencies, which require larger, external antennas – Swarm, for example, needs a 20cm antenna to communicate with its satellites.
Terrestrial and satellite IoT modules also exhibit distinct differences that set them apart:
Connectivity Coverage
Satellite IoT modules use satellite networks to provide connectivity, whereas other IoT modules typically rely on cellular networks, Wi-Fi, or other forms of terrestrial connectivity. This allows devices equipped with satellite IoT modules to communicate from virtually anywhere on the planet, even in areas with limited or no cellular coverage.
Module Cost
Satellite IoT modules can be more expensive than other IoT modules due to the specialized hardware and software required to enable satellite connectivity. However, as the technology matures and the demand for satellite IoT applications grows, costs have already, and are likely to continue to, come down.
Communication Latency
Due to the time taken for signals to travel to and from satellites in space, satellite IoT modules can experience higher latency than their terrestrial counterparts. However with Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, for example Iridium, latency can be less than one second, providing high-quality, low-latency communication.
Further benefits to Satellite IoT
Security and Data Privacy
Satellite IoT networks employ robust security measures to protect data transmission and ensure privacy. Encryption and authentication protocols are implemented to safeguard data integrity and prevent unauthorised access. Firewalls and VPNs are leveraged when data travels over public infrastructure like the internet, but this can be completely circumnavigated with either private lines or a private satellite network like TSAT.
Reliable and Resilient
Satellite networks are designed to be highly reliable and resilient. They are less susceptible to environmental factors, natural disasters, or infrastructure failures that can disrupt terrestrial networks. Typically offering high reliability and uptime, satellite IoT ensures consistent data transmission and device communication even in challenging and remote environments.
Scalability
Satellite IoT networks offer scalability to accommodate a large number of connected devices. Businesses can scale their IoT deployments without concerns about network capacity limitations or infrastructure upgrades. This scalability is crucial for projects that require the connection of a large number of sensors, devices, or assets spread across vast areas.
Rapid Deployment
Satellite IoT modules enable rapid deployment, especially in remote or temporary setups. They eliminate the need for building new terrestrial infrastructure or relying on existing networks. Companies can quickly establish IoT connectivity in remote or disaster-stricken areas, facilitating faster response times and data collection.
The Future of IoT modules
The previously mentioned research from IoT Analytics, also noted that the integration of satellite connectivity options into LPWA chipsets, spearheaded by companies like Qualcomm, has the potential to accelerate the adoption of hybrid IoT devices. Sony Semiconductor has already introduced ALT1350, the first cellular IoT LPWA chipset with satellite connectivity, expanding the communication capabilities of IoT devices beyond conventional network limitations. This significant development paves the way for new possibilities in the IoT landscape. By incorporating satellite connectivity into LPWA chipsets, further innovation and growth are projected. Until then however, the combination of satellite and terrestrial networks still delivers organisations the flexibility to realise the full potential of their IoT deployments.
Choosing the right Satellite IoT modules
The majority of satellite IoT modules are proprietary technology. Simply, they are designed to leverage a specific satellite network, for example, Viasat, and often a specific airtime service, for instance, IoT Pro. As each satellite network offers different coverage, reliability, latency and so on, and each service allows different data rates, message sizes and more, its key companies evaluate their connectivity needs thoroughly. Satellite connectivity can be expensive (see our post on how to reduce satellite connectivity costs), so typically businesses will only use this for areas of their IoT network where they are struggling with connectivity, or for the purposes of failover or backhaul. In any case, businesses should assess their data transmission requirements and select the most appropriate satellite airtime service for their application, before considering their hardware options.
If you do have any specific queries related to airtime, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. We’ve been doing this for over 20 years and though we have significant relationships with both Iridium and Viasat we’re not tied to any one provider, just helping you find the best solution for your project and budget.
Once companies have selected their preferred airtime service, it’s important to consider the interfaces and integration options provided by the satellite IoT modules. It is important to determine if the modules support the necessary interfaces (e.g., UART, SPI, I2C) for seamless connectivity with IoT devices or sensors. Additionally, assessing compatibility with standard IoT protocols (e.g., MQTT, HTTP) is vital to ensure smooth integration within your existing IoT infrastructure.
Another aspect that businesses need to assess is the size and form factor of the satellite IoT modules. Consider any space limitations, weight restrictions, and physical constraints that may be relevant. For instance, if your application requires burying sensors or housing them within an enclosure, antenna options must be considered. Depending on factors such as the enclosure material, an external antenna may be required to enhance signal strength. This improves communication reliability and can help facilitate clear line-of-sight with geostationary satellite networks.
Moreover, companies must verify that the satellite IoT modems comply with relevant certifications and regulatory standards applicable to their target markets. Compliance with certifications like FCC, CE, and RoHS ensures adherence to quality, safety, and environmental standards. For those with deployments spanning larger geographical areas, it’s prudent to ensure that there are no local restrictions for satellite connectivity; some countries such as India restrict use without prior government approval.
Additionally, it is important to assess the cost considerations associated with the satellite IoT modules. This includes evaluating module pricing, airtime costs, and any additional fees or licensing requirements. Considering the total cost of ownership over the desired lifespan of the IoT project will provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial implications.
Finally, though satellite IoT modules are designed to be power efficient, it is necessary to evaluate power consumption. Depending on the deployment scenario, it might be worthwhile to consider modules that can leverage alternative power sources such as solar power, like the Iridium Edge Solar.
By carefully considering these factors, companies can make informed decisions when selecting satellite IoT modules, ensuring optimal integration, performance, and cost-effectiveness for their specific IoT projects.
Overall, satellite connectivity is a game-changer for IoT, enabling devices to operate in previously unreachable areas and opening up new possibilities for businesses and industries. By choosing the right satellite IoT module and airtime service, businesses can unlock the full potential of IoT and drive innovation in their respective fields.
Unlimit your IoT deployment today
As industry leaders that have been designing and manufacturing satellite devices for over 20 years, with strong partnerships with top satellite providers like Inmarsat and Iridium, we have the expertise, experience, and access to competitive satellite airtime rates to make your IoT initiatives a success.
Don’t let geographical limitations hold back your IoT ambitions. Let our team of experts guide you towards achieving your goals. Fill in the form below and take the next step towards unlocking the full potential of your IoT project.
Smart Water Management: How Massive IoT is transforming the Water sector
The Internet of Things (IoT) describes connecting any device to other connected devices and the internet, or other communications networks. This allows all devices to collect and share data about their environment and how they are used. In short, IoT makes things smart.
Massive IoT then, is simply IoT on a massive scale; multitudes of sensors, connectivity and data processing to create new solutions. Many businesses have already adopted Massive IoT technology, citing reduced costs and wastage, and improved operational efficiency among the benefits.
Given its obvious applications to the Water industry – including smart metering and remote equipment monitoring – it’s unsurprising that sensors in the water and wastewater treatment industries are forecast to grow to $2 billion by 2030. But why is this so important?
Water is a finite, essential resource. In the UK alone, it’s estimated that by 2040 we’ll see between 50-80% less water in rivers during the summer months, and by 2050, the population will have risen from 67 million to 75 million. To put this in perspective, the Environment Agency has predicted England will run short of water within 25 years, with Sir James Bevan describing the country as facing the “jaws of death”.
Though total leakage across England and Wales has decreased over the last five years, Ofwat has estimated that currently, one fifth of all running water through pipes is lost to leakage. To even contemplate meeting increases in demand while navigating challenges such as urbanisation and climate change, suppliers must look to processes and infrastructure, across entire networks, to ensure these are as efficient as possible.
Technology advances have a history of providing the solutions we need, and thankfully, there are many ways Massive IoT is already and will continue to optimise operations for the Water and Wastewater treatment industries.
Factors driving Massive IoT adoption in the Water industry
The Water sector has already implemented a variety of sensors to monitor water quality, manage smart meters and optimise distribution. Traditionally infrastructure including pumps and reservoirs have been monitored using SCADA systems. However, the final segment of pipeline responsible for delivering water to a customer’s premises, has always remained somewhat unknown to suppliers. For information here, Water companies have relied heavily on feedback from customers; for example, calling to report a leak or fault.
As Jat Brainch, Chief Commercial and Product Officer at Inmarsat puts it – “you can’t manage what you can’t measure, and automation and digitalisation of the data capture process to collect granular, real-time results, is becoming increasingly essential”. In short, to be able to get a better handle on water management, companies need data, delivered consistently and reliably to inform decisions.
Moreover, as the risks and realities associated with climate change become better understood, so does the requirement for all organisations to reduce their overall environmental impact. This boils down to improving water optimisation and wastewater treatment so water can safely be recycled. Both of which can be better facilitated with IoT technologies.
5 ways Massive IoT can benefit Water and Wastewater companies
- Smart water management
- Water quality and safety monitoring
- Improved customer engagement
- Environmental monitoring and reporting
- Equipment management and maintenance
1. Smart water management
Utilising IoT technologies such as sensors, geospatial mapping, and big data analytics, companies can efficiently plan, develop, distribute, and manage water resources. Real-time monitoring and predictive analytics enable transparent pipeline management, water conservation, leak detection, and optimised service planning.
2. Water quality and safety monitoring
Monitoring water quality is crucial to ensure that suitable quality standards are maintained at every stage of the water cycle, from collection through treatment and distribution.
Despite laws that require water companies to treat and dispose of wastewater, raw sewage and contaminants from factories are still legally and illegally dumped in waterways in much higher concentrations than are safe for human and animal health. Estimates reveal that in 2020, there were more than 400,000 instances of discharged raw sewage into English and Welsh rivers.
Real-time monitoring systems with sensors provide data on various parameters, including pH level, dissolved oxygen level, and turbidity. This data helps identify contamination sources faster and prevent further spread, ensuring suitable water quality standards are maintained throughout the water cycle.
3. Improved customer engagement
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) technology enables real-time data collection and evaluation of water consumption. Water companies can provide customers with real-time alerts about network damage, leaks, and adjust pricing based on insights. This empowers customers to make conscious decisions, leading to improved customer satisfaction, engagement, and reduced water consumption.
4. Environmental monitoring and reporting
Blocked, overflowing systems can cause flooding, erosion, turbidity, storm and sanitary sewer system overflow, and infrastructure damage. While most businesses have some form of environmental monitoring system in place, there are many challenges associated with measuring and reporting on water usage. For example, remote locations can be difficult to access and monitor; pipes can become blocked or damaged; and heavy rainfall can cause flooding and damage equipment.
By combining data from sensors within Powered Telemetry Modules (PTM), companies can monitor and forecast events such as flooding, erosion, and infrastructure damage. Utilizing a variety of monitoring tools, proactive measures can be implemented to prevent and mitigate damage in areas most at risk.
5. Equipment management and maintenance
Remote monitoring and analytics help identify deviations in asset performance, allowing companies to troubleshoot and address problems before they cause damage or disruption. Predictive maintenance software alerts technicians about necessary repairs, reducing maintenance costs and preventing larger repairs or outages.
Challenges to Massive IoT deployment success: Cost, cybersecurity and connectivity
Water infrastructure is vast. Due to the volumes required, the cost of modernisation and installation of new hardware is substantial. So much so that installation is often cited as the largest cost challenge when deploying IoT solutions at scale.
In addition, legacy systems and ageing infrastructures common to businesses within the Water and Wastewater sector means that adding devices may not be quite as simple as just installing. Often some level of customisation will be required to ensure newly introduced devices work well within existing operations.
However, IoT sensors, specifically those which are battery powered, have become increasingly cost-effective and providers don’t need to light up all pipelines within a network to reap benefits. When working with smart meters for example, even relatively small numbers can be used to affect change. After all, any increase in data and operation visibility can help water companies make smarter decisions and reduce maintenance costs.
Next, cybersecurity. Though Water companies must and do ensure processes require the very minimum of customer data in each instance, with increased data and data transmission, keeping this information secure from the reach of hostile parties becomes more difficult.
In 2021, a cyberattack attempt was made to tamper with the levels of sodium hydroxide in Oldsmar, Florida’s water supply. Thankfully the plant operator observed what was going on and the attack was blocked in time, but the incident does serve as a reminder of national infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Addressing this challenge requires companies and organisations to build security through every layer of the stack, and is essential to successful IoT deployment.
Finally, connectivity. It would be remiss to not highlight that the ability to quickly adapt to surges, peaks, and troughs is dependent on reliable, consistent data. Ultimately your decisions can only be as fast and as smart, as the data at hand allows. As water company networks tend to span over large areas, it’s likely some of your network will fall outside terrestrial coverage. It’s estimated that just 15% of the Earth’s surface is supported by cellular, whereas Satellite networks like Iridium cover everywhere and anywhere – including both poles.
What’s more, a recent paper found 75% of decision makers struggled to deploy their IoT projects because of connectivity issues. So it’s important companies consider connectivity options early on in IoT planning, opting for a connectivity strategy able to consistently support all assets within a network.
In addition, it’s key companies in Water and Wastewater industries ensure connectivity strategies include alternate connectivity options for backup and backhaul. This way, should there be a problem with the terrestrial networks due to e.g. bad weather or natural disasters, your IoT application isn’t negatively affected by long delays or gaps in data.
Simply, the benefits of Massive IoT are massive. Unlocking the power of smart devices and data analytics, through Massive IoT and AI, is key to ensure a more resilient, optimised and secure water network for the environment today and into the future.
Want to discuss your connectivity options?
With our extensive experience partnering with satellite network providers like Iridium and Inmarsat, we offer competitive pricing and flexible data bundles.
If you’re looking for objective advice and support for your IoT project, fill in the form below. Our expert team is here to assist you.
The Role Of 5G And Satellite Technology In Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0, alias, Fourth Industrial Revolution, describes the integration of advanced technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics, quantum computing, genetic engineering and more. It represents a shift to a more connected world, whereby the lines between the digital and physical are blurred.
Also referred to as Smart Industry, Industry 4.0 is transforming businesses, enhancing and optimising operations with real-time monitoring and control, and enabling new business models, for example, mass customization.
Cisco’s Annual Report predicted there would be almost 30 billion connected devices by 2023 and Statista estimated 15.1 billion would be IoT connected devices. Though we are still scratching the surface of the possibilities open to us as a result of IoT and Industry 4.0, more generally, all of these technologies and outcomes are dependent on connectivity. Without connection, the insights available via data transmission and analysis remain elusive.
Meeting the demands of a connected world
In order to support this increasingly connected world, governments and organizations have largely focused on building out high-speed broadband networks, expanding wireless coverage and investing in smart city infrastructure. Though some parts of the globe have made significant progress, not least those in developed countries, there are still substantial gaps. At the beginning of 2023 it was estimated that just 64.4% of the global population had access to the internet.
In November 2022, the UK government pledged £5 billion to deliver gigabit-broadband to a minimum of 85% of premises by 2025 and the original target of ‘nationwide’ was pushed back to 2030.
The role of 5G in Industry 4.0
5G’s role in the future of Industry 4.0 is significant. 5G enables a much larger number of connected devices to operate simultaneously, with faster response times and higher levels of reliability. This is particularly important for IoT applications that require real-time data processing, such as smart city infrastructure.
The 5G triangle represents the full spectrum of capabilities, from high speed data transfer to low latency connectivity for mission critical applications, and efficient connectivity for the large number of IoT devices that will be connected to the network.
1. Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB)
Fast data transfer, low latency
Data transfer speeds up to 20 Gbps and latency as low as 1 millisecond
Use cases: High bandwidth applications, for example, video streaming and virtual reality.
2. Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC)
Low latency, high reliability
Latency as low as 1 millisecond and reliability of up to 99.999%
Use cases: Mission-critical applications such as autonomous vehicles.
3. Massive Machine-Type Communication (mMTC)
Low power, low bandwidth
Designed to support up to 1 million devices per square kilometre
Use cases: Applications with a high volume number of devices. For example, automated supply chain management, infrastructure for smart cities.
In addition, 5G can help to address some of the key challenges facing IoT, such as security and privacy, by providing more robust and reliable connectivity.
However, though 5G is capable of delivering broadband across short distances, it was designed to enhance coverage in urban regions with dense populations – not for rural, remote areas. 5G is currently sitting at an 8% global adoption rate, with terrestrial networks more widely covering just 15% of the globe. It’s clear telecommunications infrastructure alone cannot support this new, interconnected world.
As Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association explains – “We’ve seen a recognition that many of the things that are desired by 5G can only be achieved with the ubiquitous coverage that satellite networks provide.”
The future of 5G: Satellites
Though connectivity is about more than coverage, one of the primary benefits of leveraging satellites in 5G networks is 100% global coverage. Unlike traditional mobile networks or fibre connectivity which rely on infrastructure, satellites can provide coverage anywhere and everywhere on Earth.
Another advantage is that Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites can deliver low latency, high speed connectivity. Latency is an important consideration for time critical applications such as remote surgery or autonomous vehicles where delays could lead to severe consequences. As LEO satellites are positioned between 160 – 2,000km (99 – 1243 miles) from the Earth’s surface, latency can be as low as 20 milliseconds which is comparable to that achieved via terrestrial networks. Moreover, the additional bandwidth would place 5G networks in the best possible position to accommodate ever increasing data traffic and number of connected devices.
Ultimately satellites could be used to complement 5G networks in three main ways:
- Expanding coverage to include rural, remote areas,
- Creating redundancies, and
- Additional backhaul.
Though it’s likely the role of satellites will look slightly different depending on the country and region and thus bandwidth and coverage already available, if successful these could lead to several additional business models.
But the how is slightly more complicated. Interoperability isn’t a new conversation within the communications industry but it wasn’t until 2017 that a formalized working group recommended 5G technology should be able to integrate non-terrestrial networks (NTN) such as fibre and satellites. Fast forward to July 2020, 3GPP Release 16 began to address this challenge.
What is 3GPP?
The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), is a collaboration between various telecommunications standards organizations. The main focus of the 3GPP is to develop specifications for wireless communication systems, including 2G – 5G technologies. These specifications include protocols for cellular networks, as well as guidelines for interoperability between different devices and networks, including non-terrestrial networks.
3GPP Release 16: Benefits and shortfalls
Release 16 outlined multiple significant improvements not least, access technology standards for using higher frequency New Radio, supporting greater signal bandwidth and lower latency. Of those relating to interoperability, dual connectivity was extended to support NTN. Meaning in theory satellites could connect assets in rural areas where cellular coverage was limited and integrated access and backhaul was named as an area of study.
Despite these improvements, there were some associated shortfalls. One of the main challenges with 5G over satellite is latency. While as previously mentioned, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites can achieve latency times as low as those associated with cellular, this isn’t always possible.
For geostationary (GEO) satellites, which are located roughly 34,000km above the Earth’s surface vs LEO’s 160 – 2,000km, the round-trip time is longer; closer to 270 – 540 milliseconds. As Release 16 didn’t account for this, it meant satellite operators needed to develop their own solution to mitigate potential latency issues.
What’s more, Release 16 didn’t account for mobility issues. This is more applicable to LEO satellites as these networks create a mesh of satellites around the globe and pass data as required between satellites and various ground stations. Particularly in the case of asset tracking applications where assets are moving, mobility and thus handing data from one satellite to another, becomes more important.
While Release 16 defines the interfaces between the UE and the core network, it does not provide detailed guidance on how to handle handovers between terrestrial and satellite networks. This can result in disruptions to the user experience as the UE moves between different network environments.
Ultimately Release 16 highlighted the importance of collaboration. Just one great example formed following Release 16 is that between Inmarsat and MediaTek in late 2020.
Their collaboration involved a successful field trial which ultimately contributed to 3GPP’s Release 17 standardization work on NTN. Utilising NB-IoT technology, a bi-directional link from MediaTek’s satellite-enabled narrowband service to Inmarsat’s Alphasat L-band GEO satellite was established. As Jonathan Beavon, Senior Director at Inmarsat concluded – “testing MediaTek’s standard NB-IoT chip over Inmarsat’s established GEO satellite network has proven technology from mobile networks works effectively over GEO satellites with little modification and will provide a very cost effective path to ubiquitous and hybrid global IoT coverage.”
Release 17
In 2022, 3GPP Release 17 marked the most recent standard for 5G Networks and was the first to outline technical specifications for direct-to-device 5G over satellite.
Specifically addressing interoperability, Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB), and network slicing were extended to support NTN. The former, IAB, is particularly relevant for satellite operators as it helps address issues associated with latency by providing a more direct connection between device and satellite. Network slicing on the other hand is best exemplified by applications such as smart cities. Network slicing enables specific applications within the wider smart city network to utilize allocated network slices. So in the case of traffic monitoring and management, prioritising the utilization of a low latency, high bandwidth network slice ensures this application is better supported.
Release 17 also included additional features for dual connectivity. These cover support for more advanced network slicing configurations, which can help to improve the efficiency of network resources.
Moreover, Release 17 outlined enhanced support for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. Mobility issues were addressed by new features such as satellite handover, enabling seamless connectivity as devices move from one satellite to another.
The future of wireless communications
Release 17 was the first to position satellites as a critical component of the 5G ecosystem. Though this is a significant step forward, introducing new technology into any architecture is not something which can be achieved overnight and in the case of satellites, there are two relatively large challenges to integration: regulatory and capital. There may be regulatory issues related to spectrum allocation and licensing and there are well documented business challenges related to the cost of deploying and operating satellite networks.
In the case of satellites, it’s not quite as simple as changing a SIM or updating firmware over the air. Satellites are largely programmed prior to launch. In most cases it would mean launching additional satellites within a constellation to add the technology required to support these interoperability features.
If for example, satellite operators had incorporated 2G or 3G network technology, both of which are now in the process of sunsetting, those additional features would be becoming redundant. In short, there are benefits to maintaining proprietary technology and this is how many of the longer standing satellite operators have conducted business.
Currently many of the in-built phone functions depend on 5G NTN technology. However, despite the noise the reality of integration is slow. Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon X75 chipsets, leveraging Iridium’s satellite network are due for sampling in Q2 of 2023 (now), with expected select shipping estimated for Q3 and 4. Other companies, including Apple have demoable tech which incorporates NTN using Qualcomm X65 chipsets but this is limited to one usable band – n53.
In short, while advances are exciting and once this tech does land it’s expected to be very disruptive, we are still very much in the early stages of development. So the exact role of satellites within 5G architecture and Industry 4.0 more generally is unclear.
What is clear however, interoperability is top of mind for many just now. Just this week, 13th March 2023, Iridium’s CEO Matt Desch hosted a session at the SATELLITE 2023 event titled The Satellite-Cellular Convergence – A New Era for the Telco Industry?
The last few years within the satellite industry has seen incredible growth and innovation but not all new players entering space will be here for the long term. Just as not all technology within the 3GPP standard – NB-IoT (Narrowband Internet of Things), LTE-M (Long-Term Evolution for Machines), 5G NR – will be here for the long term. The challenge now lies with satellite operators and bodies such as 3GPP to create and maintain technology standards which all players can bet on. Ultimately, the only way we will achieve a fully connected world capable of supporting Smart Industry is with both 5G and Satellite technology because without connection, nothing is smart.
Ready to unlimit your IoT application…
… But not sure where to start? We can help. Interoperability can be a real challenge for those with IoT projects. Having partnered with satellite network providers such as Iridium and Inmarsat for well over a decade, we have access to competitively priced tariffs, and almost all of our products allow dual connectivity.
So if you are working on an IoT project and would like some no pressure, objective advice, simply fill in the form and one of our expert team will get back to you.